JUDGMENT: D.K. Sinha, J.- This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 2.12.2002 passed in Misc. Case No. 5 of 1997 ( Maintenance T.R. No. 391 of 2002) by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda in a proceeding under Section 125. of Cr.P.C. by which the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- each to the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 on the date of the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 2. The complainant-O.P. No. 1 had presented an application for initiation of the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stating inter alia that she was married to petitioner Md. Mokhter some 20 years ago without specifying the amount of Dain Mehar. She further narrated that out of their wedlock, a son namely Sadir Hussain. (O.P. No.2) was born, who was about 10 years at the time of filing her petitions. As she was forced to leave her matrimonial home in the year 1987 she being the deserted woman then came to her parental home and started living with her mother but the husband did not maintain her. She further narrated that the petitioner-husband had sufficient earning from his agricultural lands. On her instance a Panchayati was held duly attended by her mother and other relatives for her future arrangement but neither her husband nor any other relatives came, instead thereof she was driven out from her matrimonial village. During pendency of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the complainant-opposite party No. 1 filed a supplementary petition before the CJM, Godda in Cr. Misc. Case No. 5 of 1997 narrating that since the petitioner-husband in his causes shown in the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stated that he had divorced his wife i.e. complainant-O.P. No.1 and therefore under changing circumstances she was inclined to seek relief under the Provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights and Divorce) Act, 1986 wherein the husband had to return Dain Mehar amount and other the gifts presented to his wife on the eve of her 'Nikah' She appended a list of such items as Schedule-A of the supplementary petition. It was further stated that even after pronouncement of divorce she was entitled to get maintenance till her life time by way of reasonable and fair maintenance within the Iddat period for meeting out her urgent needs. It was further stated that even after pronouncement of divorce she was entitled to get maintenance till her life time by way of reasonable and fair maintenance within the Iddat period for meeting out her urgent needs. The complainant-opposite party No.1 tried to interpret the reasonable and fair maintenance in her supplementary petition which included the provision for her residence, cloths and fooding etc. as provided under Section 3(1)(a) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights and Divorce) Act, 1986. It was finally stated that she would be satisfied if payment to the extent of Rs. One lakh and fifty thousand would be made to her for residence and Rs. 1,000/- per month would suffice her needs for whole of her life and accordingly, total sum of Rs. 2,10,950/- was demanded as per Schedule-A of the supplementary petition from her husband petitioner. However in ) the original petition a sum of Rs.400/ - each to her as well as her minor son was demanded being their monthly maintenance to which proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was initiated in 1987 but final order was passed on 2.12.2001 allowing their prayer since the month of filing and initiation of the proceeding. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband submitted that witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of complainant-opposite party No. 1 who deposed hereunder. P.W. 1 Bibi Erfana is the complainant-opposite party No.1. In her statement she admitted that it was not a fact that she was divorced by the petitioner-husband during pendency of the proceeding. She admitted that a sum of Rs. 200/- per month was paid to her under the orders of the court during pendency of the proceeding. P.W. 2 Nasranu Mossamat is the mother of the complainant-opposite party No.1. She testified that her daughter stayed with her husband only for 10 years but thereafter she was deserted. P.W. 3 Bhuneshwar Manjhi supported the marriage between the petitioner and opposite party No.1. P.W. 4 Sk. Latif also supported the case of the complainant-opposite party no. 1 but denied having his knowledge about pronouncement of divorce by the petitioner husband to his wife. Amongst the witnesses produced on behalf of the husband-petitioner were O.P.W. 1 Madhusudan Goswamy who testified in the proceeding that Bibi Erfana was earlier married to another person and only after securing divorce from his first husband she was married to the petitioner Md. Amongst the witnesses produced on behalf of the husband-petitioner were O.P.W. 1 Madhusudan Goswamy who testified in the proceeding that Bibi Erfana was earlier married to another person and only after securing divorce from his first husband she was married to the petitioner Md. Mokhtar and that he divorced her for the reason that she had developed illicit relation with the co-villager Rajendra Tanti to which a Panchayati was held but she escaped from the Panchayati. O.P.W. 2 Md. Ashique Ali also supported the version of the O.P.W. 1 and testified that Erfana was earlier married to another person and subsequently she was married to the petitioner and she left the village about 18-19 years ago, thereafter the petitioner Mokhtar divorced her. O.P.W. 3 Md. Abdul Azis was consistent that the petitioner Mokhtar had divorced his wife opposite party No. 1 about some 18 years ago to which a Panchayati was held but she escaped from the Panchayati for the reasons that she was having illicit relation with the co-villager. Similar statement was made by the O.P.W. 4 Md. Noar Alam also. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the O.P. No.2 had attained the majority on being completing his 16 years of age, as such he was not entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel pointed out that the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner were consistent that the complainant-opposite party No. 1 was leading an adulterous life having illicit relation with the co-villager and when she could not mend herself the petitioner divorced her and under the provision of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. no wife shall be entitled to receive allowance from her husband, if she had been leading an adulterous life or if she without any sufficient reasons renounced the society of her husband and the present case of the petitioner was squarely covered by such provisions of law. Finally the learned counsel submitted that the complainant-O.P. No.1 fairly conceded by filing supplementary petition before the CJM that the situation was changed after pronouncement of Talak by her husband-petitioner to her and she was entitled to Dain Mehal" and other items as per provision of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights and Divorce) Act, 1986. 5. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party Nos. 5. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 who conceded that O.P. No.2 has completed his 16 years and therefore appropriate order may be passed considering the fact that he was still dependant upon his mother and maternal grandmother. 6. Having regard to file facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advance on behalf of the parties, I find that the learned SDJM. Godda passed the order on 2.12.2002 directing the petitioner husband for payment of monthly maintenance to O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 at the rate of Rs. 400/- each since the date of the filing the petition for initiation of the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. but there is no evidence as to whether the husband has paid maintenance amount to his wife and son even for a single month after final order was passed in a proceeding. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I find that monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs. 400/- was awarded to pay to each of the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 with the burden upon the petitioner-husband from the month of filing of the application for initiation of the proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. I further find that during pendency of the proceeding a. separate petition was filed by the complainant-opposite party No. 1 admitting that she was divorced by the petitioner-husband during pendency of the proceeding and now with the changing Situation she sought for relief under the provision of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights and Divorce) Act, 1986. By annexing Schedule-A in the supplementary petition she was put charter of demand which were required to be returned to her under Sepcial Law, besides reasonable and fair maintenance to her during Iddat period to meet out her needs for the rest of her life till remarriage, considering the standard of living enjoyed by her and also return of her Dain Mehar amount. In so far as the right of the O.P. NO.2 claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. from his father I find that though he has attained the age of 16 years but he has not completed his age of 18 years so as to be declared as major under the Majority Act, 1875 and for that reason he is entitled for maintenance from his father-petitioner till attainment of his majority under the Act. 8. As regards the claim of the O.P. No. 1 herein, she is permitted to file appropriate petition under the appropriate provisions of Muslim Women (protection of Rights and Divorce) Act, 1986 within a reasonable time before the appropriate court for redressal of her grievance as she has fairly admitted that her husband during pendency of the proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. pronounced Talak and therefore relationship of husband and wife ceases to exist however, till filing of such petition under the Special Act within a reasonable period, the complainant-opposite party No. 1 herein shall be entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month with her admissible arrears from the petitioner and that O.P. No.2 shall continue receiving his maintenance amount from his father-petitioner till attainment of his majority under the Majority Act, 1875. 9. With this observation this Criminal Revision is disposed of.