Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The petition was filed under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to challenge an order passed by the Family Court awarding interim maintenance of ₹45,000 per month to the respondents, which includes the petitioner’s wife and daughter (!) .

2. The marriage of the petitioner and Respondent No.1 took place in 2001, and they have two children in custody of Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2, the daughter, filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC claiming maintenance (!) (!) .

3. The Family Court ordered the petitioner to pay interim maintenance to Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 until certain conditions are met (e.g., remarriage or gainful employment for Respondent No.1 and marriage or gainful employment for Respondent No.2) (!) .

4. The Court noted that Respondent No.2, being major and not suffering from any disability, was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC but could be entitled under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA Act) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

5. The Court emphasized that a major daughter without physical or mental incapacity can claim maintenance under the HAMA Act, and her filing under Section 125 of the CrPC is permissible to avoid multiplicity of proceedings (!) (!) (!) .

6. The Court determined the petitioner’s income and expenses, including deductions for dependents, and found that the petitioner’s net income was sufficient to justify the maintenance award (!) (!) (!) .

7. It was clarified that, at this stage, the order pertains to interim maintenance, and the final adjudication will occur after the parties have presented their evidence. The Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order, considering the balance of equities and the ongoing proceedings (!) (!) .

8. The petition was ultimately dismissed, affirming the Family Court’s order awarding maintenance based on the combined application of relevant laws and principles (!) .

In summary, the Court upheld the Family Court’s decision to grant interim maintenance to the petitioner’s major daughter under the HAMA Act, recognizing her entitlement despite her age, and dismissed the challenge to this order.