C. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) BY order dated 21. 6. 89, learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore. Misc. Cri. Case No. 104/80, granted interim maililenance to the wife-opposite party, at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month from the date of the application. The learned Addi. Sessions Judge, by its order dated 29. 11. 90 affirmed the said order in Criminal Revision No. 218/89. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the husband has preferred this revision application. ( 2 ) IT appears that the wife has filed an application for grant of maintenance in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore on 20. 9. 88 stating therein that her marriage was performed with her husband i. e. the petitioner, in the year 1985, according to Muslim rites. According to her, she looked after her husband as also her mother-in-law, but months after the marriage, her husband started quarreling with her, demanding dowry. She was also assaulted by her husband and not given food. According to her, a demand of Rs. 20,000/- was made for purchase of a truck and on refusal by the wife, she was driven away from her matrimonial home. ( 3 ) IN the said case, an application for interim maintenance was also filed and as stated earlier, the same was granted by the learned Magistrate and was affirmed by the Revisional Court. The husband in show cause has stated that he had already divorced his wife orally as also by communicating a letter of divorce and as such, according to Muslim Law the wife shall not be entitled to any maintenance. It was further stated that TALAQ was necessitated because of conduct of his wife herself and a letter of Talaq was sent on 25. 8. 88. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the date, the application was filed, the wife was a divorcee that the husband has not given his option to be governed by the provisions of Secs. 125 to 128 Cr. P. C. as required under Sec. 5 of the Muslim Women (protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and in that view of the matter, the application filed by the wife before the Court was not maintainable. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Mohd. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Mohd. Umarkhan v. Gulshan Begam, in support of his proposition that the application filed by the wife was not maintainable in absence of an affidavit stating that he wanted to be governed by Secs. 125 to 128 Cr. P. C. Shri M. A. Khan appearing on behalf of the wife submitted that this being second revision application in the garb of miscellaneous application, the same is not maintainable and fit to be dismissed on this score alone. Shri Khan has placed reliance on decisions of the Supreme Court in Jagirsingh v. Ranveersing, and Dharampal and Others v. Smt. Ramshri, and also on a decision of this Court in Mahendra Kumar v. State of M. P. ( 5 ) HAVING considered the submissions of the parties, I am of the view that the order of learned Magistrate being completely without jurisdiction, the same can be interfered with by this Court under its inherent power under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C Reference in this connection can be made to a judgment of this Court in the case of Shridhar v. Stale of M. P. , wherein after considering Dharampals case (supra) this Court held as follows: Keeping these two decisions in mind, if the prosecution of the petitioner be abuse of process of law, Sec. 397 (3) of Sec. 399 (3) of the Code would not impede this Court in exercise of inherent power under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. as distinct from revisional power though petitioner himself cannot maintain a second revision. ( 6 ) I am of the view that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is absolutely illegal and completely without jurisdiction and this is a fit case which calls for my interference under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. ( 7 ) AS stated earlier, the husband has not given his option to be governed by the provisions of Secs. 125 to 128 Cr. P. C. Sec. 5 of the Act, inter alia provides for filing affidavit or any other declaration in writing in such form as may be presaibed either jointly or separately, that the husband and wife should prefer to be governed by the provisions of Sees. 125 to 128 Cr. 125 to 128 Cr. P. C. Sec. 5 of the Act, inter alia provides for filing affidavit or any other declaration in writing in such form as may be presaibed either jointly or separately, that the husband and wife should prefer to be governed by the provisions of Sees. 125 to 128 Cr. P. C. Such affidavit or declaration has to be filed in the Court on the date of first hearing of the application. The explanation to Sec. 5 of the Act also explains the meaning of expression Tdate of first hearing of the applicationt, which means the date given in the summons for attendance of the respondent. ( 8 ) IN exercise of the powers conferred under Sec. 6 of the Act, rules have been framed. Rules 7 and 8 of the Muslim Women (protection of Rights 011 Divorce) Rules, 1986 prescribe form of affidavit as also the declaration to be made as provided under Sec. 5 of the Act. There is no dispute about the fact that no such affidavit or declaration was made by either side. ( 9 ) I find substance in the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner and I am of the view that no affidavit or declaration having been made by the husband before the learned Magistrate, the order passed by her was illegal and clearly without jurisdiction. The affirmation of the order by the Revisional Court is, therefore, illegal and bad in law. ( 10 ) IN the result, the application is allowed. The impugned orders of the two Courts below are set aside and the revision application stands allowed. Application allowed. .