Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. This revision-application is directed against the order dated 18th September, 1992, passed by the First Additional Sessions judge in Cr. Rev. No.179/91 TR93/92 whereby and whereunder the learned add1. Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision application with modification in the order of the learned Magistrate to the effect that the opposite party shall be liable to pay maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.150/-per month from the date of filing of the application, i. e.30.10.89 to the date of filing of the show cause by the opposite party, i. e.7th March, 1990 and for the period of Iddat. 2. In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner filed an application before the Magistrate First Class, Purnea under Sec.125 of the Code of criminal Procedure claiming Rs.500/-per month as maintenance allowance for herself and Rs.250/- per month for maintenance of her minor daughter from the opposite party. On the notice issued by the learned magistrate, the opposite party appeared in the court on 3.10.89 and filed his show cause on 6.3.90 stating inter alia that he filed a petition in the court of S. D. O. in the year 1985 and ultimately divorced the petitioner in October, 1985 besides denying the allegation made by the petitioner and making allegations against her. The parties led their evidence and the trial court after considering all the materials on the record allowed maintenance of Rs.150/- per month to the wile namely, the petitioner and Rs.75/- per mont- for the minor daughter. 3. The opposite party being aggrieved by the said order filed Cr. Revision No.179/91 in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Purnea, which was finally heard by the First Addl. Sessions judge, Purnea. 4. In view of several decisions of this Court laying down law that a wife is entitled for maintenance from the date of filing of the application till the date of filing of the show cause by the husband as also for the period of Iddat, the learned Counsel for the petitioner could not assail that part of the order of the learned Session Judge, whereby he he held the opposite party liable to pay maintenance to the petitioner only for the said period. However, in regard to the maintenance granted by the learned Magistrate for the child, which has been refused by the learned Addl. However, in regard to the maintenance granted by the learned Magistrate for the child, which has been refused by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, the learned Counsel submitted that the order of the learned sessions Judge is patently illegal and contrary to law and thus fit to be set aside. 5. The learned Sessions Judge has refused to grant maintenance to the child by applying the provisions contained in Sec.3 of the Muslim women Protection of Rights on divorce) Act, 1986 which provides for grant of maintenance to a divorced woman for the child born to her before or after her divorce by the former husband for a period of two years. In the evidence it had come that the child is about four years old and thus the learned Sessions Judge held that she is not entitled for grant of maintenance for the child. 6. Section 7 of the said Act, which is a transitional provision provides that every application by a divorced woman under Sec.125 or under Sec.127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pending before a Magistrate on the commencement of this Act, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in that Code and subject to the provisions of section 5 of the Act, he disposed of by such Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. According to the Muslim law even an acknowledgment of Talaque is enough to effect the divorce atleast from the date on which acknowledgment is made. The courts have thus held, that the state mem in regard to above only operates as a declaration of divorce from the date of filing of written statement. Unless such a declaration is made by husband is accepted by the court the woman cannot be held to be a divorced woman. The provisions of the Act only provide for protection of rights on divorce of a woman and not before divorce. In such circumstance, in my opinion, the learned Sessions Judge was not right in refusing to grant maintenance for the child by applying the provisions contained to Sec.3 of the aforementioned Act. 7. Accordingly, the revision application is allowed and the impugned order to that extent is not aside. In such circumstance, in my opinion, the learned Sessions Judge was not right in refusing to grant maintenance for the child by applying the provisions contained to Sec.3 of the aforementioned Act. 7. Accordingly, the revision application is allowed and the impugned order to that extent is not aside. The opposite party is directed to pay the entire due amount payable to the petitioner as well as maintenance for the child, if not already paid, within one month from today, failing which the consequence will follow. Revision application allowed.