A major daughter is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 20 (3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and the father is liable to maintain the daughter if he has sufficient means.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J.

1. The present petition is maintained by the petitioners under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as =the Code') laying challenge to the order, dated 18.08.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan, H.P. in Criminal Revision No. 3-S-10 of 2013, whereby maintenance was declined to petitioner No. 2, Akansha Dhiman and the order dated 19.12.2012, in Criminal Case No. 53/4 of 2009, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, H.P., was partly modified. The petitioners are also seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount by altering the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan

2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the present petition are that, as per the petitioners (daughters of the respondent), the respondent herein and their mother are the husband and wife. The petitioners maintained a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, seeking maintenance from the respondent, on account of barbarous behaviour towards the petitioners and their mother, being meted out by the respondent. The petitioners, alongwith their mother, were compelled to leave the house of the respondent. Petitioner No. 2 was sent for coaching at Kota (Rajasthan) and subsequently she was selected for Engineering course at J.P. University, Vaknaghat, and for that her mother spent Rs.2.5 lac annually. When petitioner No. 1 was studying in 10th standard in Saint Luke's School, Solan, all expenses, viz., fee, day to day expenses, tuition fee, expenditure etc. were around Rs.20,000/- per month and the expenses were likely to increase as petitioner No. 1 was likely to pursue higher studies. As per the petitioner, the respondent did not pay a single penny to them since they were ousted and respondent is posted as Assistant Drug Licensing Authority at Solan and is getting salary to the tune of Rs.70,000/- per month.

3. The respondent, by filing reply to the petition, refuted the allegations made in the petition and raised preliminary objection qua maintainability of the petition, as petitioner No. 2 attained the age of majority, hence she is not entitled for maintenance. On merits, it is denied that the behaviour of the respondent was not barbarous towards the mother of the petitioner and it is also denied that he is earning Rs.70,000/- per month. However, it is averred that his salary is Rs.42,428/- per month. The respondent had admitted that petitioner No. 2 is studying in J.P. University, but, as she has attained majority, she is not entitled for maintenance. As per the respondent, earlier he was paying the fee of petitioner No. 2. The respondent has denied that petitioners require maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- per month and it is averred that expenditure of petitioner No. 1 is not more than Rs.4,000/- per month. The respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. The learned Trial Court framed the following points on 03.11.2012 for determination

?1. Whether the respondent has neglected and refused to maintain the petitioners, as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether the petitioners are unable to maintain themselves, as alleged? OPP.

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for maintenance, as prayed for? OPP.

4. Whether the petition of the petitioners is not maintainable in the present form? OPR.

5. Whether petitioner No. 2, being major, is not entitled for maintenance, as alleged? OPR.

6. Relief.?

After deciding points No. 1 to 3 in favour of the petitioner and points No. 4 and 5 against the respondent, the petition was partly allowed and the respondent was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.8000/- per month to petitioner No. 1 and Rs.11,500/- per month to petitioner No. 2, totaling Rs.17,500/- per month from the date of filing of the petition, that is 22.09.2012. The respondent assailed the above order of the Trial Court. The learned Lower Revisionary Court partly allowed the revision and set aside the order of the learned Trial