JUDGMENT : (1) This criminal revision under section 397/401 of the code of criminal procedure read with section 19 (4) of the family court act has been preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 06. 02. 2008 passed by family court, sagar in m. J. C. No. 99/07, whereby the application filed by respondent no. 1 under section 125 of cr. P. C. Has been allowed and the applicant is directed to pay the maintenance of rs. 700/ - per month to respondent no. 1 and rs. 200/ - per month to respondent no. 2. (2) The facts of the case are that the respondents submitted an application under section 125 of cr. P. C. In the family court, sagar to the effect that respondent no. 1 smt rani was married with applicant irshad on 15. 06. 2004 and one daughter ku. Shahin was born out of their wedlock. After some time of marriage the applicant started demanding rs. 60,000/ - for purchasing autorickshaw and golden chain and ring and started her harassment for not fulfilling the dowry demand. On 10. 08. 2007 he caused her marpeet. She informed her father, who came there and asked applicant not to harass her. The applicant threatened them and got their signatures on some blank papers. The father of the respondent took her back to his house on the same day. Applicant retained all the stridhan golden ornaments etc with him. She reported the matter at mahila police station sagar. Since then she is residing with her father. The applicant has never tried to take her back. She is not doing any job and is unable to maintain herself. On the other hand, the applicant drives auto rickshaw and also helps in the business of his father. Thus, he earns rs. 8,000/ - per month. He is hale and hearty and is capable to provide maintenance. Therefore, the prayer was made to grant maintenance at the rate of rs. 3,000/and rs. 1,000/ - per month to her and her daughter ku. Shahin respectively. (3) Applicant submitted the written reply wherein he denied most of the averments made in the application. He mainly contended that she pressed him to live separately from his parents. She was not doing any household works. She did not improve herself. On 09. 08. 2007 one complaint was made by him. On 10. 08. Shahin respectively. (3) Applicant submitted the written reply wherein he denied most of the averments made in the application. He mainly contended that she pressed him to live separately from his parents. She was not doing any household works. She did not improve herself. On 09. 08. 2007 one complaint was made by him. On 10. 08. 2007 she gave divorce in the presence of her father and some witnesses. Since she has divorced, therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance. He further contended that she used to make bidi and earns there from hence capable to maintain herself. On the contrary, he is the laborer and hardly earns rs. 20 - 30 per day. He is not in a position to provide maintenance hence the application be rejected. (4) Both the parties adduced the evidence in support of their contention. The court below after appreciating the evidence allowed the application filed by respondents and directed the applicant to provide maintenance of rs. 700/ - to respondent no. 1 and rs. 200/- to respondent no. 2 per month. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the instant revision has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of revision. (5) Shri r. R. Surwaria, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the divorce has been effected in between the parties, therefore, respondent no. 1 is not entitled for any maintenance. However, learned counsel conceded that the applicant is under an obligation to provide maintenance to respondent no. 2 till she becomes major. Learned counsel further submitted that applicant is a laborer and is dependent on his father, therefore, he is not in a position to provide maintenance. Learned counsel further submitted that the court below has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and committed illegality in allowing the maintenance application of respondent no. 1, therefore, the impugned order be set aside. (6) On the contrary, shri a. S. Usmani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents supported the impugned order mainly contending that no divorce has been effected between the parties. Learned counsel further submitted that signatures of the respondent no. 1 has been taken under compulsion and this document was not even read as is admitted by hafiz shah mohammad (naw - 3) , witness of applicant himself. Learned counsel further submitted that signatures of the respondent no. 1 has been taken under compulsion and this document was not even read as is admitted by hafiz shah mohammad (naw - 3) , witness of applicant himself. If the divorce might have been effected then the amount of mehar must have been paid to respondent no. 1. The maintenance of iddat period was also to be given to her but no such amount has been paid. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent no. 1 is not in a position to maintain herself, whereas the applicant has sufficient means to provide the maintenance. The court below has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and has rightly allowed the application filed by the respondents hence it does not call for any interference. (7) The main point for consideration in this revision is that whether the court below has committed any illegality in allowing the application filed by respondent no. 1 under section 125 of cr. P. C? (8) Rani (aw - 1) has deposed that her husband used to demand rs. 60,000/ - and a golden chain in dowry. He used to harass her and cause marpeet on account of non - fulfilling such demands. When she was pregnant he caused her marpeet, therefore, she called her father. Applicant and his family members got her signatures on some blank papers. She has not divorced him. Her stridhan was not given. She was sent back to her parental house. Since then she is residing with her father at his mercy. She is leading a miserable life. She is not doing any job, therefore, unable to maintain herself. On the other hand, this applicant is having the means to provide maintenance. (9) This witness in cross - examination has denied most of the suggestive questions except the signature on document ex. D - 1. Thus, the respondent no. 1 rani (aw - 1) has given the evidence in support of her application. (10) Applicant irshad khan (naw - 1) has stated that he was keeping the respondent no. 1 with him but she has herself gone to her parental house taking rs. 5000/ - cash and ornaments with her, therefore, the report was lodged at police station gopalganj. On the next day respondent no. (10) Applicant irshad khan (naw - 1) has stated that he was keeping the respondent no. 1 with him but she has herself gone to her parental house taking rs. 5000/ - cash and ornaments with her, therefore, the report was lodged at police station gopalganj. On the next day respondent no. 1 came along with her father and some persons and said that she has decided to divorce him, therefore, the talaqnama (ex. D - 1) was written in presence of the witnesses. (11) This witness in cross - examination has admitted that amount of mehar was fixed at rs. 15,786/ -. This amount has not been given because respondent no. 1 herself abandoned this amount. Likewise the maintenance for iddat period has not been given. Thus he has stated that the divorce has been effected in between the parties hence no question arise to grant maintenance to her. (12) Nazeer khan (naw - 2) is the father of applicant irshad khan. He has given the evidence in support of his son. Hafiz shah mohammad (naw - 3) has deposed that such talaqnama (ex. D - 1) was written. However, he has admitted in cross examination that this talaqnama was not written by him and this document was not read over to respondent no. 1. (13) On appraisal of evidence, it reveals that on the one hand respondent no. 1 has stated that no divorce has been effected and she has been ousted by her husband and thus residing with her father and is dependant on him. On the contrary, applicant has adduced the evidence that the divorce has been effected in between the parties, therefore, the question to maintain his wife does not arise. (14) On perusal of record it reveals that the court below has dealt with this aspect in para nos. 11 to 14 of the impugned order and has arrived at the conclusion that the divorce has not been effected in between the parties. The finding of the court below appears to be reasonable because no reasonable cause has been assigned of the divorce. No any reconciliation has been there in between the parties before effecting the divorce. 11 to 14 of the impugned order and has arrived at the conclusion that the divorce has not been effected in between the parties. The finding of the court below appears to be reasonable because no reasonable cause has been assigned of the divorce. No any reconciliation has been there in between the parties before effecting the divorce. (15) In the case of shamim ara v. State of u. P. , air 2002 sc 3551 , the apex court has held thus: "the correct law of talaq as ordained by the holy quran is that talaq must be for a reasonable cause and be preceded by attempts of reconciliation between the husband and the wife by two arbiter - one from the wife's family and the other from the husbands if the attempts fail talaq may be effected. " (16) It is beyond comprehension as to why she will abandon her right of mehar and the maintenance of the iddat period. It has been brought on record that no such amount has been paid by her husband. In such circumstance, the court below has rightly came to the conclusion that the story of executing talaqnama is concocted and in fact it appears that the signatures of respondent no. 1 and her father have been obtained on the blank papers on which talaqnama (ex. D - 1) was written, therefore, this document so called talaqnama is not valid and hence it can't be accepted that the respondent no. 1 has divorced her husband. (17) Learned counsel for the applicant has placed the reliance on the decision rendered in danial latifi and another v. Union of india, 2001 (7) scc 740 . In this case the validity of muslim women (protection of rights on divorce) act, 1986 has been upheld and held thus: "36. While upholding the validity of the act, we may sum up our conclusions: 1) a muslim husband is liable to make reasonable and fair provision for the future of the divorced wife which obviously includes her maintenance as well. Such a reasonable and fair provision extending beyond the iddat period must be made by the husband within the iddat period in terms of section 3 (1) (a) of the act. 2) liability of muslim husband to his divorced wife arising under section 3 (1) (a) of the act to pay maintenance is not confined to iddat period. Such a reasonable and fair provision extending beyond the iddat period must be made by the husband within the iddat period in terms of section 3 (1) (a) of the act. 2) liability of muslim husband to his divorced wife arising under section 3 (1) (a) of the act to pay maintenance is not confined to iddat period. 3) a divorced muslim woman who has not remarried and who is not able to maintain herself after iddat period can proceed as provided under section 4 of the act against her relatives who are liable to maintain her in proportion to the properties which they inherit on her death according to muslim law from such divorced woman including her children and parents. If any of the relatives being unable to pay maintenance, the magistrate may direct the state wakf board established under the act to pay such maintenance. 4) the provisions of the act do not offend articles 14, 15 and 21 of the constitution of India. " (18) So far as the present case is concerned, it has not been proved that divorce was effected in between the parties, therefore, the husband is under an obligation to maintain his wife. It has also been brought on record that he has sufficient means whereas his wife is not in a position to maintain herself, therefore, the court below has rightly directed him to pay the maintenance of rs. 700/per month to respondent no. 1 and also rs. 200/ - per month to respondent no. 2. The amount of maintenance is quite reasonable and proper. No illegality, infirmity or perversity is found in the impugned order, therefore, it does not call for any interference. This revision is meritless and deserves to be dismissed. Consequently, revision fails and is dismissed accordingly.