The right of maintenance of the minor children is their independent right and has nothing to do with the right of the wife granted under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act, 1986.

1. - This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated 21-5-93, passed by the Judge of the Family Court, Jodhpur, by which the learned Judge of Family Court awarded the maintenance to the wife Rs. 500/-per month and to the minor daughter Miss Rubina @ Rs. 300/- per month with effect from the date of the application.

2. Smt. Jahanara filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband Mohammed lqbal in the Court of the learned Judge of the Family Court, Jodhpur, for the grant of maintenance. It was alleged in the application that she was married to Mohammed lqbal on 247-84 at Jodhpur as per the Muslim customs and rites. The husband used to take liquor daily and, also, used to regularly abuse her. He, also, gave beatings to her mercilessly. A demand for scooter was, also, made by the husband, which could not be fulfilled by her brother and the husband gave beatings to her on this count and ultimately, after six-seven months of the marriage, the husband left her at her parents' house. At that time she was pregnant and gave birth to Miss Rubina in her parents' house. It maintain herself while the non-applicant (husband) has sufficient source of income of about Rs. 5000/- per month and, therefore, she may be awarded the maintenance for herself as well as for her minor daughter Miss Rubina. The petitioner-husband did not appear during the trial inspite of service and, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were taken against him. The appellant, in support of her case, examined herself as AW 1 and produced in evidence AW 2 Salim Khan. The learned Judge of the Family Court relied upon the evidence produced by the applicant and after determining the income of the husband at Rs. 5000/- per month, awarded maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month to the wife and Rs. 300/- per month to the minor daughter by his judgment dated 21-5-93. Though the order for the grant of maintenance was passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court on 21-5-93 but the petitioner failed to comply with the order without any sufficient cause and, therefore, an application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the wife and the daughter for the issuance of Warrant for the Levy of the amount amounting to Rs. 28,600/- and in case of default in the payment of this amount it was prayed that the no-applicant may be sent to civil jail. This application was opposed by the petitioner and the learned Judge of the Family Court, by his order dated 8-11-93, after giving ample opportunity to the petitioner to make payment, ordered for his imprisonment of five days for each month's default in making payment of the maintenance allowance. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has given divorce to the non-petitioner in the year 1989 and a divorcee he had no knowledge regarding passing of the order 21-5-93 granting maintenance in favour of the non- petitioners and the miscellaneous petition has been filed within ninety days of the date of passing the order. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the non- petitioner is in the employment and has sufficient means to maintain herself and, therefore, she is not entitled for the grant of maintenance. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend his case and the ex-parte proceedings were taken against him and the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set- aside on this ground. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 3(1)(b) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Right of Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act, 1986') the children are entitled for the maintenance only for a period of two years and not thereafter and since Miss Rubina has already completed two ye