JUDGMENT 1. - The facts giving rise to this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) are as under: 2. The respondent-Gulshan Bano (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the claimant') was married to Mushtaq Ahmad Bhati, the son of Mahboob (the present petitioner) on 11.4.1981 in accordance with the Muslim rites. After the marriage between the parties, the claimant resided with her husband along with the present petitioner and his wife Mst. Jamila. A son, Majid was born out of their wedlock. However, the parties could not pull on well and the claimant started residing in her parents' house and, thereafter, Mushtaq Ahmad Bhati divorced her in accordance with the Mohammedon law. The claimant-wife filed a petition under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (the Act) alleging therein that in November,1989, her previous husband, without any good cause, shunted her out of the matrimonial home and later on she had learnt that he had divorced her, but she had not been paid the "mahr" amount or the amount of maintenance for 'iddat' period and even the articles presented to her at the time of her marriage by her parents and other relations as per the list annexed thereto had not been returned to her. She, therefore, prayed that a direction be issued for payment of the mahr amount, maintenance amount for iddat period and for return of the articles or for the payment of the price therefor. The claimant, besides impleading her previous husband Mushtaq Ahmad Bhati, also impleaded the present petitioner and his wife Jamila as the respondents in the petition. The petition was contested by the petitioner and other respondents. After recording the evidence produced by the parties, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the amount of mahr money due to the claimant was Rs. 32.25 p. and further that she was entitled to receive Rs. 2,000/- by way of maintenance for the iddat period and was also entitled to recover the articles mentioned in the list annexed with the petition of the value of Rs. 29,000/- and directed the respondents, including the present petitioner, to pay the amount of mahr, the amount of Rs. 2,000/- as maintenance for iddat period and to return the property mentioned in the list annexed with the petition or to pay Rs. 29,000/- and directed the respondents, including the present petitioner, to pay the amount of mahr, the amount of Rs. 2,000/- as maintenance for iddat period and to return the property mentioned in the list annexed with the petition or to pay Rs. 29,000/- as the value thereof. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition under Section 482 of the Code. 3. In this petition, Mushtaq Ahmad Bhati was impleaded as respondent No. 2, but, since he was reported to have gone abroad and could not be served, he was given up and his name was deleted vide order dated 13.11.96 passed by this Court. 4. I have heard Mr. Rajesh Goswami, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.A. Khan, the learned Counsel for the respondent and have also perused the impugned order. 5. Section 3 of the Act, which is relevant for deciding this petition, reads as under: "Mahr or other properties of Muslim Woman to be given to her at the time of divorce:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a divorced woman shall be entitled to: (a) a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the iddat period by her former husband; (b) where she herself maintains the children born to her before or after her divorce, a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid by her former husband for a period of two years from the respective dates of birth of such children; (c) an amount equal to the sum of mahr or dower agreed to be paid to her at the time of her marriage or any time thereafter according to Muslim law; and (d) all the properties given to her before or at the time of marriage or after her marriage by her relatives or friends of the husband or any relatives of the husband or his friends. (2) Where a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance or the amount of mahr or dower due has not been made or paid or the properties referred to in Clause (d) of sub-Section (1) have not been delivered to a divorced woman on her divorce, she or and one duly authorised by her may, on her behalf, "make an application to a Magistrate for an order for payment of such provision and maintenance, mahr or dower or the delivery of properties, as the case may be. (3) Where an application has been made under sub-Section (2) by a divorced woman, a Magistrate may, if he is satisfied that- (a) her husband having sufficient means, has relied or neglected to make or pay her within the iddat period a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance for her and the children;or (b) the amount equal to the sum of mahr or dower has not been paid or that the properties referred to in Clause (d) of sub-section(]) have not been delivered to her; make and order , within one month of the date of the filing of the application, directing her former husband to pay such reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to the divorced woman as he may determine as fit and proper having regard to the needs of the divorced woman, the standard of life enjoyed by her during her marriage and the means of her former husband or, as the case may be, for the payment of such mahr or dower or the delivery of such properties referred to in Clause (d) of sub-Section (1) of the divorced woman: Provided that if the Magistrate finds it impracticable to dispose of the application within the said period, he may, for reasons to be recorded by him, dispose of the application after the said period. (4) If any person against whom an order has been made under sub-Section. (4) If any person against whom an order has been made under sub-Section. (3) fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, the Magistrate may issue a warrant for levying the amount of maintenance or mahr or dower due in the manner provided for levying fines under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), and may sentence such person, for the whole or part of any amount remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or until payment if sooner made, subject to such person being heard in defence and the said sentence being imposed according to the provisions of the said Code." 6. A bare perusal of the above said provision makes it clear that an order for the payment of the abovesaid amount/return of the property etc. can be passed only against the previous husband of the divorced woman. No provision of the Act has been brought to my notice which empowers the Court to pass an order against father or mother of the previous husband of the divorced woman in regard to any of the matters mentioned above. The learned Trial Court appears to have not taken note of this fact while passing the impugned order, which has issued directions not only to the present petitioner but also to his wife besides issuing directions to the previous husband of the claimant. If the impugned order is not set aside as against the present petitioner and his wife, it would amount to injustice to both of them and would amount to abuse of process of Court. 7. Consequently, while allowing this petition, I quash the impugned order dated 31.10.1994, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) No. 1 Sikar in Case No. 48/90 as far as it has issued directions to the present petitioner and his wife Jamila and direct that the impugned order shall be read only against Shri Mushtaq Ahmad Bhati, the previous husband of the claimant. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. 8. The record of the learned Trial Court, which was summoned for hearing this case, be sent back immediately.Petition allowed. *******