P.C. instead of the provisions of 1986 Act and sought permission of the magistrate for the purpose.
Hence, the grievance of the appellant.
On analysis of the arguments placed by learned companynsel for the parties, the question that arises for determination is whether the application filed by the appellant under Section 125 Cr.
She filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code Cr.
1 Majid All Gazi.
This question was companysidered by this Court in the case of Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd.
Bilkis Begum Jahanara, was the wife of respondent No.
During pendency of the proceeding, the respondent divorced the appellant on 7.2.92.
Thereafter, she filed an application under Section 5 of the Muslim Women Protection of Rights on Divorce Act, 1986, for short the 1986 Act stating, inter alia that she prefers to be governed by the provisions of Sections 125 to 128 of the Cr.
The application was registered as proceeding No.
500/ per month each.
She carried the matter to the High Court in revision wherein the order passed by the magistrate was companyfirmed and the revision petition was dismissed.
Leave granted.
P.C. claiming maintenance for self and for minor children companyld be companysidered by the magistrate or she had to seek relief under the 1986 Act.
The appellant Mst.
M 71 92.
The said application was rejected by the learned magistrate by order dated 27.4.94 on the ground that an application under Section 5 of the 1986 Act, has to be made either jointly or separately by both the parties and an application filed by one of the parties without companysent of the other companyld number be entertained.
P.C. claiming maintenance for herself and for her two minor daughters Rs.
