CRIMINAL REVISION No.182 OF 2009 (Against the Judgment and Order dated 17.11.2008 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran, Motihari in Case No. M-212 of 2008) RAMBABU SINGH, S/o Hoti Singh, r/o Vill. Kanihar, P.S. Sugauli, Dist. East Champaran -------------(Appellant) ---Versus--- 1. The STATE OF BIHAR 2. Meena Devi, W/o Rambabu Singh, D/o Tulsi Singh, R/o Vill. Kanihar, P.S. Sugauli, Dist. East Champaran. -----------(Respondents) ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Kumar For the State : Mr. Uma Shankar Pd. Singh, A.P.P. For the O.P. : Mr. Jagdish Prasad No.1. --- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH J U D G M E N T Mandhata Singh, J. Heard both the parties. A maintenance case filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 is pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Motihar stating therein that she was married with the petitioner and gave birth of one son and one daughter from the wed lock. Son is said aged about 15 years and daughter 19 years of marriageable age. For the petitioner, it is said that he married another lady. After second marriage of her husband, she (O.P. No.2) was ousted from the house along with her son and daughter after assault. It is further stated on behalf of the O.P. No.2 that the petitioner was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. He is owner of 11-12 Bighas of land, tyre cart, Generator, She-Buffalo and 2 Ox and earns Rs. 40,000/- per month. Petitioner appeared in the Court below and filed his show cause stating that 18 Kathas of land was already given to Opposite Party No.2 for marriage of daughter and 20 Kathas for education of his son. Working in Sugar Mill, Sugauli is admitted by him but payment is said only Rs. 2200/- per month. Mentioning this much of the fact, learned Principal Judge has awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- for favour of marriage of the daughter within two months. I doubt if the Principal Judge, Family Court has gone through the provision under Section 125 Cr. P.C., no doubt Section 125 Cr. P.C. provides for maintenance of wife, children and parents. Section 125 Cr. P.C. runs as follows :- Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.- 125. (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain- (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to 3 make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means. ……………………… Thus there are limitations fixed by the law, while allowing maintenance to entitled persons. Here, in the case maintenance is shown for wife on her own behalf, on behalf of her son and daughter. Daughter is shown unmarried. An un-married daughter is entitled for the maintenance only under Section 125(1)(b) i.e. till her attaining majority. Once, she attains her majority, liability of a person comes to an end. If liability to maintenance does not remain then in any case that cannot be extended to marriage as part of the maintenance. Further, I find myself unable to find any occasion for passing such order. As submitted, neither petition for maintenance was taken for its final decision nor was any petition for the money for marriage of the daughter sought. Even then learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Motihari went on to pass the impugned order. In any case, the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court is not liable to be sustained. Accordingly, the revision application is allowed and the order dated 17.11.2008 passed by the Principal Judge, Motihari is set aside. Patna High Court, 4th September, 2009 Shail/N.A.F.R. (Mandhata Singh, J.)