This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) is filed to quash the orders passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam in Crl.R.P.No.1 of 2007 dated 18-09-2007, whereby he dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner upholding the orders of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam awarding maintenance to the major daughters in M.C.No.2 of 2006 dated 14-12-2006. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. In spite of service of notice none appears for the respondents 2 to 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents 3 and 4 who are major daughters are entitled to maintenance under the personal laws, viz., Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short “the Act”) but not under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel also contends that the Magistrate cannot award maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to the major daughters, who are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. till they attain majority but not thereafter. Since the respondents 3 and 4 are aged 31 and 29 years respectively, not suffering from physical or mental abnormality or injury to maintain themselves are not entitled to maintenance. The learned Magistrate will not have jurisdiction to award maintenance under Section 20(3) of the Act in view of Family Courts Act, 1984 and it is only Family Court which is entitled to award maintenance. Therefore, the Magistrate committed an error in awarding maintenance by applying the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Act which is liable to be set aside.

In view of the above submission, the point that arises for consideration in this petition is:

“Whether the Magistrate can award maintenance to major daughters in a petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. with the aid of Section 20(3) of the Act.”

The petitioner while admitting the relationship with respondents 2 to 4 denied the liability to maintain them stating that respondent No.2/wife is gainfully employed as Supervisor (Anganwadi) in I.C.D.S. Department at Kukunuru village and getting salary of Rs.5,000/-per month; the 4th respondent was married to one Poduthuri Rama Rao and also employed as Anganwadi Teacher in ICDS Department and getting Rs.1,200/- per month and elder daughter—3rd respondent is also major and not entitled to maintenance. The evidence adduced by the parties discloses that the petitioner/husband is living with another woman and also begot a son through her whom he contacted second marriage; he failed to take back respondents 3 and 4 to his lawful custody and did not sent any amount of maintenance was them; the petitioner is employed as teacher and got monthly salary of Rs.18,000/- per month; the petitioner failed to establish that the 4th respondent (2nd daughter) is working as Anganwadi Teacher and she was married, awarded maintenance of Rs.800/-to respondents 3 and 4; since the 2nd respondent/wife is gainfully employed, the petitioner is not obliged to provide maintenance to her, as she is able to maintain herself.

Questioning the same the petitioner carried the matter in revision before the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, who by the impugned order dated 18-09-2007 dismissed the revision confirming the order of the lower court. Hence, the present quashment petition. Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 excluded the jurisdiction of civil and criminal courts on establishment of Family Court in any area including the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, in relation to such area have or exercise any jurisdiction or powers under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Under sub-section (c) of Section 8 on establishment of Family Court for any area, every suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 7 and every proceeding under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which is pending immediately before the establishment of such Family Cour