Yogendra Kumar Sangal,J.:- This petition under Section 482 CrPC moved by the petitioner to quash the impugned order dated 08.02.2008 passed by opposite party No. 1 Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad in Criminal Case No. 160/2004 Smt. Shama Praveen vs. Mohammad Kalim. Notice for respondent No. 1 was accepted by learned AGA while notice of respondent No. 2 was served upon her but she did not appear before the Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. Admittedly, respondent No. 2 was married with the applicant-petitioner according to the rites and custom of Muslim Religion. For certain period, they lived happy life with no dispute. Later on, as per case of the respondent No. 2, petitioner made a demand of Motor-cycle and Rs. 20,000/- as dowry from her parent, but his this demand was not fulfilled, so she was subjected to harassment and also treated cruelly. She was ousted from her matrimonial house and forced to live with her parent till the demand is not fulfilled. As she was unable to maintain herself and opposite party-petitioner was having sufficient means to maintain her and also he was legally and morally bound to provide maintenance to her, but he neglected to do so, so an application under Section 125 CrPC was moved by her before the respondent No. 1 and claimed Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance from the opposite party-petitioner. 4. During the pendency of the case, she had also applied for interim maintenance at the same rate saying that she has no means to maintain herself and disposal of the case will take long time. She had also prayed for direction to the applicant-petitioner-opposite party to pay the expenses born by her parent for her ailment. This application was partly allowed by the learned Family Court and opposite party-petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month to the applicant-respondent No. 2. Aggrieved by this order, this petition was moved for setting aside the same. 5. Learned AGA argued that order passed by learned trial court was revisable before the learned Session Judge of district concerned but revision was not filed and directly petitioner-applicant approached this Court without giving any sufficient reason why he has not chosen the alternative remedy of filing the revision before the appropriate forum. 6. 5. Learned AGA argued that order passed by learned trial court was revisable before the learned Session Judge of district concerned but revision was not filed and directly petitioner-applicant approached this Court without giving any sufficient reason why he has not chosen the alternative remedy of filing the revision before the appropriate forum. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner, without replying and giving sufficient cause why the proper forum was not chosen, argued that respondent No. 2 left the matrimonial house as per her own will. Several efforts were made by the applicant-petitioner to bring back her but she did not agreed. Notice was also served upon her in this regard through Advocate and a petition for restitution of conjugal rights was filed before the competent court. She was having sufficient knowledge of the same but did not turn up in the Court although she was served with the notice to appears was issued by the Court and petition was allowed in ex-parte proceedings. Again a notice was served upon her to come back but she did not turn up. Seeing all this he had divorced her also in the presence of witnesses and informed her by registered post but with no result and as a counter blast of the same this application under Section 125 CrPC and application for interim maintenance has been moved with an ulterior motive. 7. It was further said that on the application moved on behalf of the respondent No. 2 before the learned trial court for the recovery of the arrears of maintenance amount awarded, objections were filed by him before the court saying all the above facts but the learned trial court did not consider the same and proceeded for recovery of the arrears of maintenance amount against him. 8. Admitted facts are that they both were husband and wife. As per case of the applicant-petitioner, suit for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed and she was also divorced by him and "Mehar" amount was also sent through Money-order to her. Now beyond the period of "Ibdath", she is not entitled for maintenance amount. Learned AGA argued record shows that respondent No. 2 has not accepted the case of the petitioner that she has been divorced by him and she had also pleaded ignorance about the decree of the suit of restitution of conjugal rights. Now beyond the period of "Ibdath", she is not entitled for maintenance amount. Learned AGA argued record shows that respondent No. 2 has not accepted the case of the petitioner that she has been divorced by him and she had also pleaded ignorance about the decree of the suit of restitution of conjugal rights. It is also clear from the record that after the order on the application of interim maintenance dated 08.02.2008, applicant-petitioner have complied the same in part. Rs. 2,500/- on 20.10.2008 and Rs. 3,000/- on 15.12.2008 were paid by him to the respondent No. 2 and by moving an application before the trial court he has undertaken that he will pay arrears of amount by the next date positively. But later on, he has not complied his undertaking and filed this petition. Whether she was divorced or not legally and she was having knowledge of the decree of the suit of restitution of conjugal rights and she was served with the notice alleged to send her by the applicant-petitioner, all these are question of disputed fact to be decided in the proceedings in case under Section 125 CrPC. Parties will lead evidence on this score. Now it is to be seen whether in the facts and circumstances of the case she is entitled for interim maintenance or not as allowed by the trial court. Learned AGA Sri Shiv Nath Tilehari cited the case law reported in 2009 DGLS (Soft) 1281 Sabana Bano vs. Imran Khan and argued that now it is established law that even if Muslim woman has been divorced she would be entitled to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the CrPC after the expiry of period of "Ibdath" also as so long as she does not remarry. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner have not cited any case law in replying of the same and simply argued that under the provisions of Mohammdan Law Muslim lady is not entitled to receive maintenance amount from her husband if she is divorced by him after the period of "Ibdath". It is to be seen on the evidence in the matter whether she has been legally divorced or not by the petitioner. Still there is no case of the applicant-petitioner that she had remarried herself after the alleged divorce. It is to be seen on the evidence in the matter whether she has been legally divorced or not by the petitioner. Still there is no case of the applicant-petitioner that she had remarried herself after the alleged divorce. In petition under Section 125 CrPC she had given the details of source of income of the applicant-petitioner and said that he has also income from agricultural land held by him. She further mentioned that she has no means to maintain her. Nothing had shown on behalf of the applicant-petitioner that she is having any income to maintain herself and he has no such source of income detailed by her. Moreover, it is the moral and legal duty of the petitioner to maintain her even if she has been divorced by him till she does not marry as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court referred above. It will be seen later on from the evidence of the parties what is the effect of the alleged ex-parte decree in the suit of restitution of conjugal rights and also of the alleged divorce by him to her and it is legal or not. 10. There appears no illegality, invalidity and impropriety in the impugned order and awarding interim maintenance to the petitioner by the learned trial court. Petitioner had chosen to file petition before this Court without choosing the prescribed form to file the revision. Record also shows that he has not coming with clean hands before this Court. Petition has no force and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly petition under Section 482 CrPC is hereby dismissed. 11. Learned trial court will see whether order on the application of interim maintenance passed by it is being complied or not before permitting to the petitioner to contest the application under Section 125 CrPC on merit. If it is found that he is not complying the order, he shall not be permitted to proceed till he does not comply the order. However, it is made clear that application under Section 125 CrPC shall be disposed of finally by the learned trial court without allowing any adjournment to the respondent No. 2 wife and the same shall be decided expeditiously. If possible within two months. Copy of order be sent to trial court for compliance. Petition dismissed.