The bench had reinterpreted the provisions of section 3 (1) (A) of the Act which provides that a ``fair and reasonable provision for maintenance for the woman would have to be made within the iddat period of three months after the divorce''. The section, however was being interpreted by the lower courts as one where a husband would have to provide maintenance for only three lunar months -- the iddat period -- after divorce.

When contacted, the advocate for Jaitunbi, Kisan Sonwalkar stated that no notices were served on themyet. However, it is learnt that the Bombay High Court judgement is being implemented by the lower courts throughout the state and that recently a woman in Dhaiwade, in Satara district, as been awarded a lumpsum settlement amount of Rs 50,000 by the judicial first magistrate (JFMC). The Bombay High Court, in the Jaitunbi judgement had directed the JFMC, Phaltan, in Satara where the woman resides to decide on the amount of settlement. The deadline given was by December end. The matter is still being decided.

According to the Raza Academy, which has taken up the responsibility to pursue the case on behalf of the husband, Mubarak Sheikh in the appeal, the high court's decision was a wrong interpretation of the Muslim law. The appellants in the apex court felt that such types of interpretation by the court was not allowed and that instead of strengthening the act, these will only serve to weaken the act.

According to the academy, as an Andhra Pradesh high court judgement had interpreted, a divorcee Muslim wasentitled maintenance only during the iddat period. Thereafter it is the responsibility of her relatives who are entitled to inherit her property on her death to maintain her. If there are no such relatives, it is the responsibility of the Waqf Board of the state to provide her with maintenance.