B. M. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) IMPUGNING the order dated 14th August, 2003 passed by sessions Judge, Morena in criminal revision no. 113/02, this petition for invoking the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. has been preferred. By the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge inter alia has affirmed the order dated. 14. 3. 02 passed by J. M. F. C. , Morena in M. J. C. N 13/00 (new no. 136/03), by which learned magistrate while considering the application supported by an affidavit filed by the respondent, negatived the claim of maintenance of the petitioner, a muslim wife, on the ground that she has been divorced during the pendency of the proceedings. ( 2 ) THE facts, in brief, are that during the pendency of one application under Section 125 (3) of Cr. P. C. filed by the petitioner for execution of the maintenance, the respondent/husband while assailing the claim of maintenance has filed one application on 27th August, 2001 supported by an affidavit dated 11th august, 2001 and informed the Court that he has already divorced the petitioner and being Muslim, after divorce she is not entitled for any maintenance. The same was denied by the petitioner. However, the learned magistrate while accepting the factum of divorce negatived the claim of the petitioner from the date of application. The same was assailed by the petitioner before the learned Sessions judge in the aforesaid criminal revision in which the finding of the learned magistrate with regard to the existence of valid divorce was affirmed and the revision petition was dismissed with some modification (which is not relevant ). Hence, this petition by the petitioner/wife. ( 3 ) WHILE placing reliance on the following judgments:-1. Shamim Ara v. State of U. P. and another. 2. Khatunbai @ Mehraj Bi v. Gani Khan. Shri Afsar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that in the light of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well of this Court mere filing an application supported by an affidavit by a Muslim husband with regard to the divorce is not sufficient to establish the factum of divorce as has been observed by the Hon'ble apex Court in Shamim Ara's case - Talak may be oral or in writing. But it must be for a reasonable cause and it must be preceded by an attempt of reconciliation between the husband and the wife by two arbiters, one chosen by the wife from her family and the other by husband from his. If there attempts fail, 'talaq' may be effected by pronouncement. As observed by a Single Bench of this Court, in khatunbai's case (supra ). It is bounden duty of the husband to prove in Court by adducing cogent and reliable evidence that he had divorced his wife in accordance with Muslim law - Mere pleading or filing application about pronouncement or declaration of divorce would not sufficient to establish it. ( 4 ) COUNTERING the aforesaid contentions, Shri Gauri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/ husband, has submitted that whatever it was ordered by both the courts below with regard to the claim of maintenance upto the date of application, has been complied with and the amount has been accepted by the petitioner, hence, now she is estopped from taking the aforesaid stand. ( 5 ) AS agreed by both the parties during the course of arguments, the only point in dispute in this petition that whether the petitioner is entitled to maintenance in view of the aforesaid application and affidavit filed by the respondent. ( 6 ) IN the aforesaid application dated 27. 8. 01 simply it is mentioned that because the respondent has divorced the petitioner hence she is not entitled to any claim of maintenance. In the aforesaid affidavit dated 11th August, 2001 simply it is mentioned that when the petitioner did not agree to come and live along with him, considering that the matrimonial tie will not be resumed, he has declared talak (divorce) in presence of the witnesses and as such thereafter the relationship of wife and husband is not in existence. It is not mentioned that on what date it was pronounced or whether the same was communicated to the petitioner or not. The respondent did not request to give opportunity to prove the same. It is also not mentioned that it was preceded by an attempt of reconciliation between the two, as has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as aforesaid. The respondent did not request to give opportunity to prove the same. It is also not mentioned that it was preceded by an attempt of reconciliation between the two, as has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as aforesaid. In view of this, the aforesaid orders of both the courts below amounts to existence of an abuse of the process of the court which can be corrected or set right by this Court under its inherent powers. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the aforesaid orders of both the courts below are set aside, so far as they relates to the aforesaid point in dispute. ( 7 ) ON perusal of the para 9 and 10 of the impugned order it appears that an amount of Rs. 1500. 00 per month for maintenance was awarded to the petitioner along with her son and that order is still in existence. That has only been negatived vide impugned order because the factum of divorce was accepted. The factum of divorce is being negatived here in this order, hence the aforesaid decision of the Courts below of awarding of rs. 1500. 00 per month to the petitioner along with her son will remain in existence. ( 8 ) CONSIDERING the provisions of muslim law it is pertinent to mention here that the continuance of this order will be subject to any further order that may be passed by a competent Court under the provisions of 127 of Cr. P. C. or otherwise, if it is moved by the respondent in future. Petition allowed. .