JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant application has been preferred challenging the propriety and correctness of the order dated 03.05.2006, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, in Maintenance Case No. 56 of 2004; whereby the learned Family Court, Ranchi has held that the petitioner No. 1-(wife of O.P. No. 2) is not entitled to any maintenance allowance on the ground that she has already been divorced by the O.P. No. 2 and petitioner No. 2 (child of O.P. No. 2) is only entitled to monthly allowance of Rs. 600/- per month from June, 2004; that too is very inadequate. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the Nuzhat Jahan-petitioner No. 1 and Taiyab Ali-O.P. No. 2 were married on 02.04.2000 according to Muslim rites and customs. The petitioner No. 1 went to her sasural where she was subjected to cruelty for dowry demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- for purchasing of a Car. The petitioner No. 1 was deprived of proper food and clothes. The petitioner No. 1 even under such circumstances gave birth to a male child namely Abu Talha @ Nahid Hussain (Petitioner No. 2). That on 25.03.2004, the petitioner No. 1 along with her child was driven out of her matrimonial house and had to take shelter in the house of a neighbour who sent her to her parent’s house. The petitioner No. 1 is unable to maintain herself and her child. The opposite party No. 2 is owner of a Fair Price Shop under the Public Distribution System of the Government. He also works as a contractor and has got sufficient landed property. His monthly income is not less than Rs. 40,000/- from the sources. 4. Ms. Saman Ahmad, learned amicus for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1 is not divorced by the O.P. No. 2. She further contends that even assuming but not admitting that the petitioner no. 1 has been divorced by the opposite party No. 2; still she is entitled for maintenance as per the settled law. She further submits that under Muslim law, father is under the obligation to maintenance his legitimate child until he/she attains majority. The amount of Rs. 600/- as awarded by the learned Family court to petitioner No. 2 as monthly allowance is too meagre during these days. She further submits that under Muslim law, father is under the obligation to maintenance his legitimate child until he/she attains majority. The amount of Rs. 600/- as awarded by the learned Family court to petitioner No. 2 as monthly allowance is too meagre during these days. She further disputed the documents exhibited by the O.P. No. 2 before the learned trial court. She lastly submits that even if a Muslim woman has been divorced she would be entitled to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 Cr. P.C. even after the expiry of period of Iddat also as long as she does not remarry. 5. Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that there is no error in the impugned order as the learned Family Court has rightly denied maintenance to petitioner no. 1 as she was divorced by the O.P. No. 2. Further, the Family Court has duly awarded maintenance of Rs. 600/- per month to petitioner No. 2 and no interference is required. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order it appears that the sole reason for disallowing maintenance to the petitioner No. 1 is that she was divorced by the opposite party No. 2. 7. For brevity, relevant portion of the order is quoted herein-below: “O.P. has filed documents Ext. B and B/1 which are Talaknama and its translated copy to prove that on 8.2.2004 he had divorced his wife Nuzhat Jahan which was confirmed in the meeting of Anjuman Islamia held on 9.2.2004. The document shows that the Dain Mehar and expenses of Iddat period along with the expenses of marriage was handed over to the parents of the Applicant along with the entire articles and ornaments given in the marriage. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of the O.P. and his witnesses along with documents Ext. B and B/1 that he has already divorced Applicant No. 1 on 8.2.2004. Therefore, I hold that the Applicant No. 1 Nuzhat Jahan is not entitled to any maintenance allowance. However, her child Abu Talha @ Nahid Hassan aged about 4 years is entitled to maintenance allowance. I find that the monthly allowance of Rs. 600/- per month as directed by Anzuman Islamia is adequate for the maintenance of the child. Therefore, I hold that the Applicant No. 1 Nuzhat Jahan is not entitled to any maintenance allowance. However, her child Abu Talha @ Nahid Hassan aged about 4 years is entitled to maintenance allowance. I find that the monthly allowance of Rs. 600/- per month as directed by Anzuman Islamia is adequate for the maintenance of the child. Accordingly, I direct O.P. Taiyab Ali to pay a sum of Rs. 600/- per month to the Applicant for maintenance of minor son. The order shall take effect from the date of filing of the Application i.e. from the month of June, 2004. However, any amount of maintenance paid after filing of this case shall be adjusted towards the arrear. Application u/s 125 Cr. P.C. is hereby allowed in part.” 8. There has been a long debate as to whether a Muslim woman will be entitled for maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. even after the period of iddat. Now the law is no more res integra. In the case of Md. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556 , Five-judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the Code of Criminal Procedure controls the proceedings in such matters and overrides the personal law of the parties and in case of conflict between the terms of the Code and the rights and obligations of the individuals under personal law, the Code would prevail. The Supreme Court referred the case of Iqbal Bano vs. State of U.P. (2007) 6 SCC 785 which followed Vijay Kumar Prasad vs. State of Bihar, (2004) 5 SCC 196 to hold that proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P.C. are civil in nature and laid down that a petition under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. filed by a divorced woman would be maintainable before the Family Court as long as wife does not remarry and the amount of maintenance to be awarded under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. cannot be restricted for the iddat period only. In other words, even a divorced Muslim woman would be entitled to claim maintenance from her divorced husband, as long as she does not remarry. This being a beneficial piece of legislation, the benefit thereof must accrue to the divorced Muslim women. P.C. cannot be restricted for the iddat period only. In other words, even a divorced Muslim woman would be entitled to claim maintenance from her divorced husband, as long as she does not remarry. This being a beneficial piece of legislation, the benefit thereof must accrue to the divorced Muslim women. It is to be noticed that the right of maintenance available to wife from husband is absolute right and even divorce cannot affect this right unless the wife is disqualified on account of remarriage or her sufficient earning. 9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and settled proposition of law, the impugned order needs to be quashed and set aside. It is held that even if a Muslim woman has been divorced, she would be entitled to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. after the expiry of period of iddat also, as long as she does not remarry. Now there can be no shadow of doubt that the divorced Muslim woman is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. 10. As the learned Family Court has denied maintenance to the petitioner No. 1 for the sole reason that she has been divorced by the O.P. No. 2, as such the instant application, is hereby, allowed and the case is remitted back to the Family Court with a direction to pass a fresh order for maintenance after noticing both the parties in the light of observation given herein above. 11. The learned trial court should keep in mind the price inflation and other financial constraints which the petitioner No. 1 is bearing while fixing the quantum of maintenance. 12. It goes without saying that since it is a case of maintenance, the learned Family Court is directed to conclude the entire proceeding as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months. 13. Needless to say, since the petitioner No. 1 has not been paid any maintenance till date, as informed by learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial court should also pass an order of interim maintenance in favour of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 14. With the aforesaid direction, the instant application stands allowed. 15. The Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Ms. Saman Ahmad, learned amicus for the petitioners who has prepared meticulous notes on prosecution evidence and produced copies of the judgments. 16. 1 and 2. 14. With the aforesaid direction, the instant application stands allowed. 15. The Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Ms. Saman Ahmad, learned amicus for the petitioners who has prepared meticulous notes on prosecution evidence and produced copies of the judgments. 16. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse Ms. Saman Ahmad, learned Amicus on submission of bills for this case @ Rs. 5,000/- per appearance subject to the maximum limit as per the applicable Notification. 17. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below, the Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee and also to the petitioners and O.P. No. 2. 18. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.