This revision is directed against order dated 6.11.2008 in IA No.178 of 2008 in OS No.47 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam.

2. The respondent herein, who is the daughter of the petitioner herein, filed the suit under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (‘the Act’ for brevity), seeking maintenance etc., from the petitioner. The petitioner/defendant filed IA No.178 of 2008 seeking to frame a preliminary issue as to the maintainability of the suit for maintenance by the Christian daughter - the respondent/plaintiff, without there being any enactment empowering her to do so.

3. The case of the petitioner/defendant before the Court below was that he is a heart patient; that though the respondent/plaintiff is earning, she filed the present suit - OS No.47 of 2004 against him falsely with a view to harass him while another suit - OS No.67 of 2007 filed by her is pending; that she being the Christian daughter, no enactment entitles her to claim maintenance, and therefore, the present suit is not maintainable.

4. The case of the respondent/plaintiff before the Court below was that though previously the issue with regard to the maintainability of the suit was decided in her favour, the petitioner/defendant again raised the same issue in the present interlocutory application.

5. The Court below, considering the material available on record, having framed an additional issue –‘Whether the suit is maintainable as the plaintiff is a Christian?’ and having observed that previously an issue was framed with regard to the maintainability of the suit by the daughter against her father, but not on the ground that the daughter is a Christian; that as Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides maintenance to the children by the father, whether they are Christians, Hindus or Muslims and that as the High Court already decided that the jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is also vested in the Family Court under Section 7 of the Act; held the issue in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and against the petitioner/defendant.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the respondent/plaintiff being Christian is not entitled for maintenance without there being such enactment in her favour.

7. The learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that irrespective of the caste and the age of the daughter, she is entitled for maintenance from her parents as per law. In support of this contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim, AIR 1977 SC 3280, wherein the Apex Court observed that as per Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, female Muslim children are entitled to claim maintenance till they get married. The Apex Court also held that under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the maintenance of the children is obligatory on the father (irrespective of his religion), and that as long as he is in a position to do so and the children have no independent means of their own, it remains his absolute obligation to provide for them.

8. The learned Counsel also relied on another judgment of the Apex Court in Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manjulata, (2002) 5 SCC 422, wherein the Apex Court held that though Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not fix liability of parents to maintain children beyond attainment of majority, but right of a minor girl for maintenance from parents after attaining majority till her marriage is recognized under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

9. The learned Counsel further relied on the judgment of the Patna High Court in Subhas Roy Choudhary v. State of Bihar, 2004 Cri. LJ 573, wherein it was held that major unmarried daughter is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The relevant paras are extracted hereunder:

9. The Supreme Court had the occasion to consider this question in the case Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manjulata, (2002) 5 SCC 422, in which it has been held as follows:

“Applying the