JUDGMENT : 1. In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of order dated 30th June, 2017 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Poonch in File No. 32/Revision titled, “Mst. Famida Naz and others Vs. Mohd. Akram”, by virtue of which, Revision Petition filed by the respondents herein against the order dated 22nd April, 2017 passed by the Sub-Judge Special Mobile Magistrate, Poonch, has been accepted. It has been stated that order impugned is illegal and against the spirit of judgment passed by this Court in case titled, “Masrat Begum Vs. Abdul Rashid Khan and others” reported in 2014 (3) JKJ 1 (561-A Cr.P.C. No. 110/2010). 2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge, a brief factual matrix of the case is as under: 3. The petitioner got married with one-Tazeem Akhter D/o Mohd. Din way back in the year 1999 under the Muslims Personal Law and out of the said wedlock, three issues (two sons aged about 16 years and 14 years respectively and one daughter aged about 8 years) were born. The wife of the petitioner, namely, Tazeem Akhter died on 27th October, 2010. After the death of wife of the petitioner contracted second marriage with respondent No. 1, namely, Famida Naz in the year 2011. The marriage of respondent No. 1 was contracted primarily for the welfare of the children, for which respondent No. 1 agreed to provide all sorts of love and affection to the children of the petitioner. Out of the aforesaid wedlock with respondent No. 1, respondent No. 2, namely, Noreen Fatima (minor) was born. Initially the behavior of respondent No. 1 was cordial towards the petitioner as well as his children from earlier wife, but with the passage of time, the attitude and conduct of respondent No. 1 became so cruel that she used to taunt the children of the petitioner and even started abusing and beating them on one pretext or the other. Petitioner always tried to persuade respondent No. 1 to not pollute the peaceful atmosphere of the family and to create unnecessary scene, but the respondent No. 1 did not mend her ways. Petitioner always tried to persuade respondent No. 1 to not pollute the peaceful atmosphere of the family and to create unnecessary scene, but the respondent No. 1 did not mend her ways. The respondent No. 1 used to demand divorce from the petitioner, as she wanted to dissolve her marriage with the petitioner and faced with the circumstances, when petitioner left with no other alternative and failed in all his efforts, dissolved the marriage with respondent No. 1 with a Deed of Divorce (Annexure-A) dated 18th January, 2017. 4. Respondent No. 1, who is ceased to be legally wedded wife of the petitioner, cooked a story and filed a false and frivolous petition under Section 488 Cr. P.C, by virtue of which, she sought maintenance from the petitioner for herself as well as for respondent No. 2 before the Court of Sub Judge Special Mobile Magistrate, Poonch, in which the petitioner appeared and filed the detailed objections to the aforesaid petition u/s 488 Cr. P.C. The said petition is still pending disposal before the Sub Judge Special Mobile Magistrate, Poonch. 5. Alongwith petition u/s 488 Cr.P.C, respondent No.1 also filed an application for interim relief, in which also the petitioner filed his reply, objecting the ground of interim maintenance in favour of respondent No. 1 amongst other grounds, of her having been ceased to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The application for the grant of interim maintenance came to be disposed of by the Sub Judge Special Mobile Magistrate, Poonch vide order (Annexure-C) dated 22nd April, 2017, in which the Sub Judge Special Mobile Magistrate, Poonch after returning prima facie finding that respondent No. 1 herein ceased to be legally wedded wife of the petitioner in view of Deed of Divorce dated 18th January, 2017, declined her maintenance. 6. However, in so far as respondent No. 2 is concerned, the Sub Judge Special Mobile Magistrate, Poonch directed the petitioner herein to pay interim maintenance @ 1000/- per month to respondent No. 2 through her mother from the date of presentation of application for interim maintenance. 7. 6. However, in so far as respondent No. 2 is concerned, the Sub Judge Special Mobile Magistrate, Poonch directed the petitioner herein to pay interim maintenance @ 1000/- per month to respondent No. 2 through her mother from the date of presentation of application for interim maintenance. 7. Respondents aggrieved of the order dated 22nd April, 2017 preferred Revision Petition bearing No. 32/Revision under Section 435 Cr.P.C before the Sessions Judge, Poonch, in which the Sessions Judge, Poonch vide his order (Annexure-D) dated 30th June, 2017 allowed the Revision Petition and set aside the order dated 22nd April, 2017 passed by the Sub Judge Special Mobile Magistrate, Poonch with a further direction to the petitioner to pay monthly interim maintenance to the tune Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) per month to respondent No. 2 from the date of presentation of application for grant of interim maintenance before the learned Sub Judge Special Mobile Magistrate, Poonch. 8. The petitioner, who is aggrieved of the order dated 30th June, 2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Poonch in Revision Petition filed by the respondents herein, has challenged the same, inter alia, amongst on the following grounds:- (a) The order impugned is not only against law and facts, but also in violation of the judicial discipline to be maintained by the Presiding Officer, as such the same is liable to be set aside. (b) The order impugned is contrary to the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in 561-A Cr. P.C No. 110/2010 reported as 2014 (3) JKJ 1 , as such cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside. (c) Once the trial Court has declined grant of interim maintenance by taking into consideration the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court (supra), the judicial proprietary demands that the Sessions Judge could not have commented upon the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court even if he holds a view, different to that of the view taken in the judgment (supra). That this Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid judgment passed in Masarat Begum’s case has considered the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled, “Shamim Ara Vs. That this Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid judgment passed in Masarat Begum’s case has considered the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled, “Shamim Ara Vs. State of UP, reported as AIR 2002 SC 3551 and keeping in view the observation made in the aforesaid judgment of Shamim Ara, this Hon’ble Court finally holds that the wife, who is alleged to have been divorced, is not entitled to be granted interim maintenance. However, the Sessions Judge, Poonch in his judgment dated 30th June, 2017 in Paras 13 and 14 in a most contemptuous manner commented upon the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Masarat Begum’s case and observed that the text of the judgment in Masarat Begum’s case goes prima facie contrary to what has been held by the Apex Court of the country in the aforesaid Shamim Ara’s case. The Sessions Judge being subordinate to this Hon’ble Court, is not entitled to make such contemptuous comments upon the text of the judgment. Instead of complying the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in its letter and spirit, he had deviated from it as if he is hearing the appeal against the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court. The conduct of Sessions Judge, Poonch while passing the judgment impugned, is highly contemptuous and needs to be taken note of. In this view of the matter, the judgment impugned cannot be sustained in the eye of law and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. (d) Even the enhancement of maintenance in favour of respondent No. 2 is without jurisdiction by the Sessions Judge inasmuch as it has been established with the documentary proof that the petitioner is living from hand to mouth, as he is simply a need based worker, who is being paid Rs. 150/- per day and the wages are not paid on monthly basis, but on the basis of work done by the petitioner. (e) It is well settled that a Muslim wife after the pronouncement of divorce is not entitled to seek maintenance from her ex-husband beyond the period of edit and that is also held by this Hon’ble Court in Masrat Begum’s case (supra). 9. Heard learned counsel for both sides and considered the law on the subject. Learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned order. 10. 9. Heard learned counsel for both sides and considered the law on the subject. Learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned order. 10. From the facts and circumstances of the case, only point for consideration is that whether a plea of divorce taken by husband in objections to a petition u/s 488 Cr.P.C disentitle claimant –wife for interim maintenance. Court below has held that this is factual finding and can be proved during trial. This finding of Court below is correct because if the plea of divorce is taken as it at initial stage and is considered, then very purpose and object of granting interim maintenance during the pendency of main petition under Section 488 Cr.P.C shall be forfeited. Because purpose of granting interim maintenance is that wife/claimant may survive up to final adjudication of petition u/s 488 Cr.P.C which takes long time to finalize. 11. The provisions of maintenance under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are applicable to persons belonging to all religions and have no relationship with the personal laws of the parties. The Code of Criminal Procedure, being a general law has a uniform applicability to all the persons irrespective of their religion, caste or status. In the event of conflict between a special law and a general law, it is accepted judicial principle that special law shall prevail over the general law. Section 488 of Cr. P.C, is applicable to the Muslims including divorced Muslim woman irrespective of the fact that in Muslim personal law, wife ceases to be wife on Talaq. Muslim husband is liable to provide maintenance for divorced wife who is unable to maintain herself, so long as she had not remarried. The statute provides for maintenance of wife by her husband even after the divorce and creates an illusory or fictitious relationship between the two spouses in view of the social conditions prevalent in the country. Further it also prevents the former husband of the divorced wife to drive their erstwhile wives to a state of poverty and destitution till they remarry. 12. In 2014 (4) JKJ (HC) 3 in case titled Manzoor Ahmed Dar versus Tasleem Akhtar; and in 2017 (2) JKJ (HC) 510 in case titled Ab. Further it also prevents the former husband of the divorced wife to drive their erstwhile wives to a state of poverty and destitution till they remarry. 12. In 2014 (4) JKJ (HC) 3 in case titled Manzoor Ahmed Dar versus Tasleem Akhtar; and in 2017 (2) JKJ (HC) 510 in case titled Ab. Qayoom v. Learned 1st Additional Session Judge, Jammu, this High Court has held that Interim maintenance is allowable till the plea of divorce is proved , otherwise non grant thereof shall have disastrous consequences.. On the one hand, sociological object of section 488 Cr.P.C. will be defeated because there will be every apprehension and chance for the seeker of interim maintenance to be subjected to destitution and vagrancy. 13. Further perusal of deed of divorce would further reveal that, husband/petitioner has given Triple Talaq, which has already been declared unconstitutional by Apex Court. The observation of Court below that in view of Shamim Ara v. State of UP, AIR 2002 SC 3551 , the citation of Massart Begum v Abdul Rashid 2014 (3) JKJ 1 is not applicable, is also correct, because it is easy to take plea of divorce in objection by husband after simply preparing a document of divorce and get it registered before notary. But there are certain grounds under Muslim personal law on which divorce can be given. So it is fact which is required to prove during trial. 14. In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned order of setting aside refusal to pay interim maintenance to wife, does not suffer from infirmity of law, it is upheld and interim maintenance granted by Session Judge Poonch by exercising power of revision vested in it, to wife also does not suffer from any infirmity of law. So far question of enhancement of maintenance to minor baby of 1-1/2 years from 1000/- to 2000/- is concerned, I also do not find any illegality in the order because maintenance includes food, medicines, clothing and other necessities of life. 15. Hence this petition is dismissed.