R. Basant, J.

The appellant is the father of the respondents. The mother of the respondents was divorced by the appellant. There were disputes between the appellant and the mother of the respondents. Altogether there were six children born in the wedlock. When litigations were pending between the appellant and the mother of the respondents, Annexure A1 agreement was entered into. As per the terms of the said agreement, the respondents herein were allegedly handed over to the custody of the appellant. The mother of the respondents was given custody of only the sixth child, a male child. All pending proceedings were allegedly brought to termination after execution of Annexure-A1 agreement.

2. Subsequently, admittedly the children, the respondents herein continued in the custody of their mother. According to the appellant, their mother had snatched away the respondents, who were agreed to be and were actually handed over under Annexure A1 agreement to the appellant. The appellant did not take any steps to get the respondents back into his custody admittedly. The mother of the respondents filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C, claiming maintenance. That petition was allowed and maintenance was ordered to the respondents as per order in M.C. No. 65 of 1993. That order was passed u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure Later M.C. No. 143 of 2003 was filed before the Family Court u/s 127 Cr.P.C for enhancement of the maintenance amount. That was allowed. The same was challenged. The challenge was rejected by the High Court as per Order in R.P.(FC) No. 59 of 2006.

3. While the respondents were continuing in the custody of their mother, both of them attained majority. There is no contention that the respondents have any physical or mental abnormality, injury or disability. Thus, the liability to pay maintenance u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure came to a grinding halt. Thereafter maintenance was not paid to the respondents herein.

4. The respondents herein, after they attained majority, staked a claim for maintenance. According to them, they are entitled to maintenance from the appellant, their father, under the personal law, applicable to them. The parties are Muslims. The claim was resisted on various grounds. Parties went to trial. On the side of the respondents, the first respondent examined herself as PW1. The appellant examined himself as RW1.

5. The Family Court took note of the fact that the respondents continue to be students and that they are unable to maintain themselves. The Family Court further found that the appellant is a business man having sufficient means. Accordingly the Family Court proceeded to pass the impugned order directing payment of an amount of Rs. 1,500/- and Rs. 1,250/- per mensem respectively to the respondents from the date of the original petition.

6. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is his grievance? The learned Counsel for the appellant was requested to advance detailed arguments for admission as we did not prima facie find any merit in the challenge raised. The learned Counsel for the appellant has raised various contentions before us.

7. The learned Counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the appellant has no legal liability to maintain his adult major daughters. The court below had found the claim for maintenance by the adult major unmarried daughters to be justified and maintainable in view of the personal law applicable to Muslims crystallised in clause 370 of Chapter XIX of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan Law which states the principles of liability in the following words:

370 : Maintenance of children and grandchildren :- (1) A father is bound to maintain his sons until they have attained the age of puberty. He is also bound to maintain his daughters until they are married. But he is not bound to maintain his adult sons unless they are disabled by infirmity or disease. The fact that the children are in the custody of their mother during their infancy (S