A major unmarried daughter is entitled to claim maintenance under S. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and S. 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.

1. Whether a major unmarried Hindu daughter shall be entitled for maintenance in a proceeding under S. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the question which falls for determination in the present case under the following circumstances?

2. Opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 who happened to be the mother and daughter, filed application for grant of maintenance under S. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The claim was laid against the husband and father respectively. According to the wife she was in the employment of the State Government but after her retirement she has not got any pensionary benefit and as such unable to maintain herself and her daughter. The petitioner who happens to be the husband of opposite party No. 2 and father of opposite party No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the father) resisted their prayer on the ground that the wife had sufficient means to maintain herself from the retirement benefits, which she shall be entitled on superannuation and opposite party No. 2 being a major daughter, she is not entitled for the maintenance.

3. During the pendency of the application a prayer was made for grant of interim maintenance and the Principal Judge, Patna by order dated 24-4-2002 passed in Maintenance Case No. 52(M) of 2001 rejected the prayer of the wife but directed for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2000.00 per month by way of interim maintenance to the daughter. While doing so it has been held that the daughter is major who is not employed and hence the father is liable to maintain herself.

4. Mr. Partha Sarthy appearing on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 raises a preliminary objection and contends that the present revision application has been preferred against an interim order, which is interlocutory in nature and as such, in view of S. 397(2) of the Code, the revisional power cannot be exercised and on this ground alone the application filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

5. Mr. Anil Kumar Jha appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, submits that the order being completely without jurisdiction, same can be interfered with by this Court in the revisional jurisdiction. However, to avoid any technical difficulty, Mr. Jha prays to convert this application into an application under S. 482 of the Code. Nothing prevents this Court to exercise its inherent power under S. 482 of the Code to prevent abuse of the process of the Court in relation to even an interlocutory order. Hence I proceed to consider this application into an application under S. 482 of the Code and decline to reject the prayer on the ground urged by Mr. Partha Sarthy. Mr. Jha contends that condition precdent for grant of maintenance under S. 125 of the Code is failure of the parents to maintain legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not who are unable to maintain himself and in the face of the clear and unambiguous language of S. 125(l)(b) of the Code a major unmarried daughter is not entitled for maintenance. Section 125(l)(b) of the Code which is relevant for the purpose reads as follows :

"125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents : (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or 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 order the father or a minor female child referred to in C1. (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."

6. It is contended that from a plain language of the aforesaid provision it is evident that the