ORDER 1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order dated 14-12-1995 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No.187/1989, so far as it relates to refusal of grant of maintenance to the petitioner Zahirunnisa in accordance with Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from her husband - the respondent Wahab Mohammed. 2. The petitioner Zahirunnisa and Rahim Mohammed, claiming themselves to be the wife and son respectively of the respondent Wahab Mohammed and also claiming that they are unable to maintain themselves, whereas the respondent has sufficient means to maintain them but refused to maintain them, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance to both of them, total amounting to Rs.400/- per month. In reply, the respondent defying the same, submitted that, no legal marriage had taken place between himself and Zahirunnisa, and Rahim Mohammed is not the son born out of their wedlock. Apart from that, he divorced Zahirunnisa on 14-5-1984 and also communicated the divorce to her. According to the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (henceforth `the Act'), Zahirunnisa is not entitled for grant of maintenance, being a woman divorced, and her son Rahim Mohammed is also not entitled for grant of maintenance, as, on the date of application, he was more than 2 years. 3. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that, Zahirunnisa was married to Wahab Mohammed on 17-4-1980 in accordance with the rites and customs of Muslim Law, but Wahab Mohammed divorced Zahirunnisa on 14-5-1984. Rahim Mohammed did not took birth out of their wedlock. Apart from that, on the date of presentation of the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he was more than 2 years. Therefore, vide order dated 22-6- 1989, passed in Criminal M.J.C. No.205/1988, learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by Zahirunnisa and Rahim Mohammed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Apart from that, on the date of presentation of the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he was more than 2 years. Therefore, vide order dated 22-6- 1989, passed in Criminal M.J.C. No.205/1988, learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by Zahirunnisa and Rahim Mohammed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said order was challenged in criminal revision bearing No.187/1989 before learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, who, after hearing both the parties, on 14-12- 1995, held that, Rahim Mohammed, being the son of Wahab Mohammed, is entitled for grant of maintenance, and accordingly ordered to pay maintenance from 18-4-1984 at the rate of Rs.200/- per month, but denied to grant maintenance to Zahirunnisa on the ground that although she was married to Wahab Mohammed, she was divorced by him on 14-5-1984, and under the provisions of the Act, her right of maintenance from her husband is barred. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, has held that, Wahab Mohammed gave oral divorce to his wife Zahirunnisa and thereafter prepared a Talaknama and sent her the same by registered post. Learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur also accepted the evidence that Wahab Mohammed, after pronouncing thrice, gave divorce to Zahirunnisa and thereafter Talaknama, Ex.D-1 was written on 14-5-1984 and was sent to Zahirunnisa by registered post, and accordingly held that, Wahab Mohammed divorced his wife Zahirunnisa on 14-5-1984. 5. A Division Bench of Gauhati High Court, dealing with the matter of Talak in Mst. Rukia Khatun vs. Abdul Khalique Laskar, reported in (1981) 1 Gauhati LR 375, stated that, the correct law of Talak, as enumerated by Holi Kuran is that, (i) Talak must be for a reasonable cause and (ii) it must be preceded by an attempt of reconciliation between the husband and wife by two arbitrators, one chosen by the wife from her family and other by the husband from his family. If their attempt fails, Talak may be effected. 6. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Shamim Ara vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2002 AIR SCW 4162, in paragraph 14 of its judgment, as quoted below, approved the observations made by the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in Mst. If their attempt fails, Talak may be effected. 6. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Shamim Ara vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2002 AIR SCW 4162, in paragraph 14 of its judgment, as quoted below, approved the observations made by the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in Mst. Rukia Khatun's case (supra) : - Para 14 : " We are in respectful agreement with the abovesaid observations made by the learned Judges of High Courts. We must note that the observations were made 20- 30 years before and our country has in recent times marched steps ahead in all walks of life including progressive interpretation of laws which cannot be lost sight of except by compromising with regressive trends. What this Court observed in Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain, AIR 1979 SC 362 dealing with right to maintenance of a muslim divorcee is noteworthy. To quote : The meaning of meanings is derived from values in a given society and its legal system. Article 15(3) has compelling compassionate relevance in the context of S. 125 and the benefit of doubt, if any, in statutory interpretation belongs to the ill-used wife and the derelict divorcee. This social perspective granted, the resolution of all the disputes projected is easy. Surely, Parliament, in keeping with Art. 15(3) and deliberate by design, made a special provision to help women in distress cast away by divorce. Protection against moral and material abandonment manifest in Art. 39 is part of social and economic justice, specificated in Art. 38, fulfillment of which is fundamental to the governance of the country (Art. 37). From this coign of vantage we must view the printed text of the particular Code. (para 7) Law is dynamic and its meaning cannot be pedantic but purposeful. (para 12)" 7. In the aforesaid Shamim Ara's case (supra), in paragraph 15, Hon'ble the Apex Court found that, in the given case, there are no reasons substantiated in justification of Talak and no plea or proof that any effort at reconciliation preceded the Talak. As per paragraph 17 of the said judgment, Hon'ble the Apex Court allowed the appeal and held that neither the marriage between the parties stands dissolved on 5-12- 1990 nor does the liability of the respondent to pay maintenance comes to an end on that day. 8. As per paragraph 17 of the said judgment, Hon'ble the Apex Court allowed the appeal and held that neither the marriage between the parties stands dissolved on 5-12- 1990 nor does the liability of the respondent to pay maintenance comes to an end on that day. 8. As enunciated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India, now it becomes necessary for Talak that, the Talak must be for reasonable cause and it must be preceded by reconciliation and if these two conditions are not fulfilled, then the Talak, either given orally or by a written document, has no effect to dissolve the marriage. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent frankly admits that, laws, as enunciated by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Shamim Ara's case (supra), are in force after the judgment, and after that judgment, for Talak, both the aforesaid conditions are required to be fulfilled, otherwise the Talak will have no effect, but for other cases earlier to 2002, the law laid down by the above case is not applicable. I afraid to accept the contention to be correct because the aforesaid judgment does not lay down a law but only interprets the meaning of Talak prevalent in muslim community and, therefore, whether the Talak took place before the judgment in Shamim Ara's case (supra) or after, for its validity, both the conditions, as enumerated, are required to be fulfilled. 10. The respondent Wahab Mohammed, in his reply to petitioner's application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, did not plead the reason for divorce nor there is any pleading that any reconciliation took place before the Talak. As regards the evidence, Wahab Mohammed himself has been examined as NAW-2, and in his statement, he only stated that he divorced Zahirunnisa and sent her the Talaknama by registered post. In cross-examination, he accepted that he did not mention any reason for divorce and also stated that no reason is necessary for it. Ishak Ali, NA-4 stated that Wahab Mohammed came and told that he has no amicable term with his wife Zahirunnisa, therefore, he intends to divorce her and pronounced thrice, and thereafter the document Ex.D-1 was written. In cross-examination, he says that the document Ex.D-1 was written by hand and not typed and in that document he signed, but the document Ex.D-1 is a typed one, therefore, a cloud causes over the document Ex.D-1. 11. In cross-examination, he says that the document Ex.D-1 was written by hand and not typed and in that document he signed, but the document Ex.D-1 is a typed one, therefore, a cloud causes over the document Ex.D-1. 11. From the pleading and evidence, it is clear that, for Talak, no reasonable cause has been assigned by Wahab Mohammed and no reconciliation took place before it. Therefore, according to law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court, the contention of Wahab Mohammed that he divorced Zahirunnisa has no force and the marital tie between them still exists. 12. It has been further contended on behalf of Wahab Mohammed that in Criminal Revision No.187/1989, Zahirunnisa was a party to it, who herself has filed the revision and the said revision was decided on 14-12- 1995, declaring that she has been divorced by her husband Wahab Mohammed on 14-5-1984, but Zahirunnisa did not challenge that order since 1995, and now after 9 years, she has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking relief of maintenance, therefore, the delay in filing this petition disentitles her for getting maintenance against her husband. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not prescribe any period of limitation, therefore, if it comes to the knowledge of High Court that there is any abuse of process of any Court or it is necessary to secure the ends of justice, the High Court may entertain application at any moment and can accord relief to needy. Here, in the given case, Zahirunnisa was the wife of Wahab Mohammed. She, having no means of her livelihood, approached the Court below for awarding maintenance against her husband, but was denied the relief on the count that she has been divorced by her husband, whereas as per prevalent Personal Law, she could not have been declared divorcee. She was denied justice not only by the forum of law but also by her husband, who admittedly is a Government Servant and employed in Forest Department and has sufficient means to provide maintenance to his wife Zahirunnisa. 13. She was denied justice not only by the forum of law but also by her husband, who admittedly is a Government Servant and employed in Forest Department and has sufficient means to provide maintenance to his wife Zahirunnisa. 13. Zahirunnisa, in her application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, claimed a sum of Rs.400/- per month from her husband for herself and her son Rahim Mohammed, and was succeeded in getting maintenance of Rs.200/- per month for her son, therefore, only according to her application, she was entitled to receive at the most the remainder sum of Rs.200/- per month as maintenance from her husband. However, she has every right to move under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of the maintenance amount in accordance with the procedure and law prescribed for enhancement. 14. Although this petition has been preferred by Zahirunnisa after a long interval, yet to prevent abuse of process of Courts below as also to secure the ends of justice, this petition is allowed, and it is directed that, Wahab Mohammed shall pay a sum of Rs.200/- per month to Zahirunnisa towards her maintenance. However, for enhancement, Zahirunnisa shall have right to proceed under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before competent Court of jurisdiction.