Judgment :- (Criminal Revision Case is preferred against the order passed in M.C.No:10 of 2003, dated 5.1.2004 by the learned Family Court Judge, Salem.) This Criminal Revision Case has been directed against the order of the Family Court Judge, Salem, by which the revision petitioner was directed to pay a maintenance of Rs.1,200/= to the first respondent and Rs.900/= to the second respondent. 2. The respondents filed Matrimonial Case in M.C.No.10/2003 for maintenance on the file of the Family Court Judge, Salem. The brief facts of the respondents' case are as follows:- The petitioner herein and the first respondent herein got married on 12.11.1987 at Bangalore and the second respondent was born to them on 22.1.1996. The petitioner and the first respondent lived at Salem. During 1991, the petitioner left for Dubai by taking Rs.65,000/= from the parents of the first petitioner and returned with empty hands. On 9.5.2002 the respondent took from the petitioner's mother a sum of Rs.30,000/= as loan and drove away the first respondent during he month of June 2002 from the matrimonial home after severely beating her. From that date onwards the respondents are residing in the parents house of the first respondent. The petitioner has divorced his wife by issuing Talak which is not valid in law since it is not accompanied by the offer of return of Mahar amount and payment of alimony during Iddath period. The petitioner is earning about Rs.15,000/= per month as a two wheeler mechanic and he is a broker for sale of second hand two wheelers. 3. The petitioner contested the Matrimonial Case stating that the first respondent's application on the ground that the averments mentioned in the application are false, he never illtreated the first respondent demanding money or dowry. The allegation that he took Rs.30,000/= from the first respondent's mother as loan is not correct. It is true that he left for Dubai in the year 1993, but he was not paid any amount alleged by the first respondent. During January 2002, the first respondent along with her mother illtreated the petitioner cruelly and drove him away from the family house. When the petitioner went to take back the first respondent from her mother's house, he was treated with atmost disrespect and the first respondent refused to return to he house of the petitioner. During January 2002, the first respondent along with her mother illtreated the petitioner cruelly and drove him away from the family house. When the petitioner went to take back the first respondent from her mother's house, he was treated with atmost disrespect and the first respondent refused to return to he house of the petitioner. On 6.11.2002 the petitioner gave first Talak and on 11.12.2002he gave final Talak. The Shariat Court of Salem has approved the dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent. On 17.11.2002 the first respondent gave an undertaking at the All Women Police Station that she will lead a peaceful life, but she failed to return to the petitioner's house. The first respondent is a Teacher in a Matriculation School and is having S.B.Account No.24965 at Indian Bank, Fort Branch, Salem. The respondents are not entitled for any maintenance. 4. Before the Family Court, Salem, on behalf of the respondents, the first respondent and her mother Mumtaj were examined as P.Ws 1 and 2 as witnesses and the petitioner herein was examined himself as R.W.1 besides one T..Khadarkhan as R.W.2. Exs.P.1 and P.2 were marked on behalf of the first respondent and Exs.R.1 to R.5 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Family Court Judge held that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,200/= per month as maintenance to the first respondent till her life time and Rs.900/= per month to the second respondent till she gets married. Aggrieved over the said order, this revision has been filed. 5. There is no representation for the respondents and in spite of notice sent twice, the respondents failed to appear. The notice and acknowledgment card is produced to prove the service. Mr.G.M.Syed Fasidduin, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that because of the attitude of the first respondent Talak was pronounced by the petitioner and the same was properly communicated by the petitioner and the letter dated 11.12.2002 is marked as Ex.P.2. This letter was received by the mother of the first respondent who was examined as P.W.2 and the postal acknowledgment card is marked as Ex.R.3. 6. Thereafter, the Shariat Court at Salem was moved by the petitioner. This letter was received by the mother of the first respondent who was examined as P.W.2 and the postal acknowledgment card is marked as Ex.R.3. 6. Thereafter, the Shariat Court at Salem was moved by the petitioner. But, in spite of notice, the respondents failed to appear and thereafter on 12.5.2003, the Shariat Court at Salem dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent under certain conditions which are as follows:- (i) The petitioner's first Talak by letter dated 6.11.2002 and other two Talaks by another letter dated 11.12.2002 has caused three Talakhs and thus the marital relationship between the parties is broken. (ii) After three months period of Iddath, the first respondent can remarry and the petitioner also can remarry. (iii) The petitioner should pay a Mahar amount of Rs.5,250/= and Jeddha amount of Rs.5,000/= and Rs.1,500/= for the Iddath period to the first respondent. The first respondent should deliver the jewels and Passport of the petitioner and the petitioner should pay Rs.300/= per month to the second respondent till her attaining majority. 7. As per the order of the Shariat Court, Salem, the petitioner sent a Demand Draft for Rs.11,750/= drawn at Canara Bank, dated 19.3.2004 which has been received by the first respondent. 8. The learned Family Court Judge, did not accept the first Talak said to have been pronounced by the petitioner on the ground that Ex.R.1 letter dated 6.11.1002 sent by him was not received by the first respondent and therefore there is no proper communication of the first Talak pronounced by the petitioner. There is no dispute that the letter was received by P.W.2, who is none other than the mother of the first respondent. The postal acknowledgment card is Ex.R.2. It is the admitted case of the first respondent that she is living in the mother's house after parting ways from her husband. The mother would not have suppressed the receipt of Ex.R.1 Talak letter issued by the petitioner. Hence, the receipt of R.1 Talak notice received by the mother has to be treated that there is proper communication of the Talak pronounced by the petitioner. 9. As per the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, the divorced Muslim women are not entitled for maintenance except for the Iddath period. Hence, the receipt of R.1 Talak notice received by the mother has to be treated that there is proper communication of the Talak pronounced by the petitioner. 9. As per the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, the divorced Muslim women are not entitled for maintenance except for the Iddath period. Admittedly for the Iddath period the petitioner has sent a demand draft for Rs.11,750/= as per the orders of the Shariat Court at Salem. Therefore, the first respondent is not entitled for any maintenance at the hands of the petitioner. As regards the second respondent, being the child born to the petitioner and the first respondent, she is entitled for the maintenance as ordered by the Family Court, Salem and therefore as far as the second respondent is concerned, the order of the learned Family Court Judge, Salem is upheld. 10. Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed setting aside the maintenance awarded to the first respondent-wife alone. In other respects the maintenance awarded by the Family Court, Salem to 2nd respondent is confirmed.