N. K. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 17-12-2002 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bellary on la. No. II in O. S. No. 223 of 2002 and also to dismiss the application filed by the 1st respondent. ( 2 ) THE respondents herein have filed I. A. No. II in O. S. No. 223 of 2002 before the Trial Court seeking interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month till the disposal of the suit from the petitioner herein. ( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are as under: the petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent and their marriage was performed as per the rites and customs of Muslim on 16-5-1996. After marriage she led happy marital life at Bellary and 2nd respondent is born out of their wedlock on 5-5-1998. After the birth of 2nd respondent, petitioner and his family members demanded a sum of rs. 1,00,000/- to improve the business. When she refused to ful fill the demand, petitioner started harassment by without providing proper food and she has been put to mental torture. When the harassment continued, 1st respondent's mother, sisters and brothers with great difficulty have paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the month of January 2001. In spite of that, petitioner and his family members have not stopped cruelty. In the month of April, petitioner assaulted 1st respondent without giving food and medical treatment to her and 2nd respondent, and snatched all gold ornaments from her, which were presented by her parents and brothers. Petitioner has forced the 1st respondent to leave her marital home along with 2nd respondent. 1st respondent left the marital home and joined her brother for better prospects of 2nd respondent. Several negotiations and panchayaths were held but the petitioner has not made any efforts to take her back. Therefore, 1st respondent lodged a complaint before cowl Bazar Police Station, Bellary against petitioner and his family members for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC read with sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During the pendency of the said case, petitioner and his family members requested her to withdraw the case and undertook to maintain respondents without any cruelty. 1st respondent at the intervention of the family members agreed for compromise and withdrew the case. During the pendency of the said case, petitioner and his family members requested her to withdraw the case and undertook to maintain respondents without any cruelty. 1st respondent at the intervention of the family members agreed for compromise and withdrew the case. In spite of that, petitioner's attitude was not changed, therefore, she was compelled to go to his parental house. 1st respondent came over to Bangalore and admitted her daughter, 2nd respondent to Vidyanidhi Trust, White Field, Bangalore. 1st respondent has no source of income and she is entirely depending upon her parents. Therefore, she has filed LA. No. II in O. S. No. 223 of 2002 for grant of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month which was allowed by the Trial Court on 17th December, 2002 by granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- each to the respondents 1 and 2. ( 4 ) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, I. A. No. II filed by the respondents before the Trial court is not maintainable on the ground that the respondent 1 has filed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights and there is no provision under the Mohammedan Law to file such a suit. Therefore, once the suit filed is not maintainable, the question of considering LA. No. II for maintenance is not at all sustainable. This aspect of the matter is not at all considered by the Trial Court, as such the order is liable to be set aside. Further, he submitted that during the course of argument that the petitioner has divorced the 1st respondent and the question of maintaining her does not arise and Trial Court has not at all taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- each without any basis. Further, he has submitted that once the 1st respondent had been divorced, the question of giving maintenance by the petitioner does not arise and there is no provision in the Mohammedan law, as such the application is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed. ( 5 ) I have carefully perused the impugned order passed in LA. No. II. I do not find any error of law in the order passed by the Trial Court in awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs. ( 5 ) I have carefully perused the impugned order passed in LA. No. II. I do not find any error of law in the order passed by the Trial Court in awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- each to the respondents 1 and 2. Regarding the principal submission made by the petitioner's counsel that the application filed by the 1st respondent is not maintainable has no substance and the said submission is to be rejected at threshold in view of the well-settled principles of law laid down by the constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Danial Latifi v union of India and Another, wherein the Constitutional Bench held that the Muslim husband is liable to make reasonable provision for the future of the divorced wife which obviously includes her maintenance. Further, it is declared that the divorced Muslim woman if not remarried to maintain herself after the iddath period she can seek maintenance from the husband. Therefore, if the law laid down by the Constitutional bench of the Apex Court is taken into consideration, I am of the view that the application filed by the 1st respondent for maintenance is maintainable. Therefore, the submission of the petitioner's Counsel that the application is not maintainable is rejected. ( 6 ) THE question as to whether a husband who wantonly discard his basic duty of providing the elementary essentials to the wife, even not provided the most basic and bare necessities such as, shelter, clothes, food and etc. , and other basic essentials to live with honour and dignity in the society. The Trial Court after detailed analysis of the material records available on file recorded the finding that the petitioner herein has failed to make out a case against the respondents herein regarding maintenance. Therefore, the maintenance awarded by the Trial Court is just and proper and not called for any interference by this Court. ( 7 ) THE Trial Court after assessing the entire material and hearing both the parties at a considerable length of time has clearly held that the petitioner herein has failed to substantiate his case that he has divorced the 1st respondent by producing authenticated documents. The said dispute raised by the 1st respondent is to be decided by thorough and detailed trial. The said dispute raised by the 1st respondent is to be decided by thorough and detailed trial. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly held that the defence taken by the petitioner herein regarding divorce given to the 1st respondent requires a detailed enquiry and this aspect is to be considered at the time of considering main suit and till then the plaintiffs/respondents are entitled for maintenance as provided under Section 278 of the Mohammedan Law. The Trial Court has also taken into consideration that the 2nd respondent is already admitted to the private school at bangalore and to that effect 1st respondent has produced the documents. ( 8 ) IT is significant to note that the Trial Court has given a specific finding that even otherwise under Section 317 of the Mohammedan law, the 1st respondent is entitled for maintenance and as the 2nd respondent has been under the care and custody of the 1st respondent, as such, she is also entitled for maintenance. Therefore, the Trial Court has awarded Rs. 500/- each as maintenance to the respondents 1 and 2 which is just and reasonable. Therefore, I do not find any justification to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. ( 9 ) INSOFAR as the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the suit for conjugal rights filed by the 1st respondent is not maintainable under the Mohammedan Law, it is open for him to make such submission before the Trial Court when the matter is taken up for consideration, but not before this Court. The question for consideration before this Court is whether the impugned order passed by the Trial court on LA. No. II is in accordance with law or there is any miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. Therefore, the above submission of the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court. ( 10 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above and by taking into consideration the totality of the case in hand, I do not find any error of jurisdiction or illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. Therefore, the revision is to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .