1. This is an application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing order dated 5-10-1999 in Case No. Misc. 122 of 1996 corresponding to Trial No. 387 of 1999 recorded by Sri. Rajendra Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, first class, Ara as well order dated 5-8-2000 recorded in Cr. Rev. No. 288 of 1999 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ara. In this case learned counsels for the petitioner, for opposite party No. 1, Arpana Kumari, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State have been heard. This application, therefore, is being disposed of at this stage.

2. One Vidyawati Devi, who had expired in course of the proceeding and Arpana Kumari, her daughter, had filed a petition under Sec. 125 of the Code for their maintenance. On death of her mother the daughter continued to prosecute the case. Arpana Kumari was unmarried who had stated her age to be eighteen years on the date of her deposition, on 31-5-1999. The case was contested and in the final order the learned Magistrate directed payment of maintenance at the rate of rupees five hundred per month to Arpana Kumari till she got married or was able to maintain herself, whichever was earlier. This order was passed in view of a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Noor Saba Khatoon V/s. Mohd. Quasim, 1997 (1) PLJR 111. That order was challenged in Cr. Rev. No. 288 of 1999 which was disposed of by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara on 5-8-2000 by which, rejecting the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court was applicable only in the case of a Muslim female child, the Court upheld the order of the lower Court.

3. In this case the only point that has been argued before me was that maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Code could not have been granted to a major female child born to a Hindu parent, hence to that extent the orders of the lower Courts could not be upheld. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1, Arpana Kumari, argued that apart from the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Noor Saba Khatoon, a Hindu father was also liable to maintain his unmarried daughter under Sec. 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "Maintenance Act" in short), hence on the same analogy as in the decision of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the orders of the learned lower Courts must be held to be valid and legal. The relevant portion of Sec. 125 of the Code is reproduced below :

"125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.- (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 not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, 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 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. Explanation,- For the purpose of this Chapter,- (a) "minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875), is deemed to have attained his majority .