Judgment This revision by the husband Abdul Malick is filed against the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Thirupathur, North Arcot District, granting maintenance to respondents who are his wife and daughter. The revision petitioner married the first respondent on 17th September, 1972, at Ambur. The second respondent, a girl was born to them on 3rd August, 1976. According to the first respondent who filed the application for maintenance before the learned Magistrate, she, who lived happily with the revision petitioner for about a year went to her mother's house for confinement; but, after she was delivered of a child, the revision petitioner came and saw the child and then did not take her back. The further contention of the first respondent was that all her attempts to live with her husband, the revision petitioner proved futile, that despite many efforts by the members of the ‘Jammaith’ the revision petitioner never took back the first respondent and her child, that the respondents have no means to support themselves. She also contended that the revision petitioner is earning about Rs. 10,000 per year doing business in Bombay and that he also gets a rent of Rs. 500 and that she is entitled to a maintenance of Rs. 200 and the second respondent is entitled to a maintenance of Rs. 100 per mensum. 2. That application of the first respondent was resisted by the revision petitioner who in his answer contended that the first respondent took away jewels valued Rs. 35,000 which belonged to his deceased first wife and that she left for her mother's house on her own accord, that the allegation that there was Panchayat is false and that as she was not willing to come and reside with him, she is not entitled to the maintenance claimed. 3. The learned Magistrate on the evidence before him came to the conclusion that the respondents are not having sufficient means to maintain themselves and found that respondents are entitled to maintenance and granted a maintenance of Rs. 75 per month so far as the first respondent is concerned and Rs. 30 per month so far as the second respondent is concerned. Aggrieved over this order, the revision petitioner has filed Crl. Rev. Case No. 278 of 1977. 4. The respondents are also aggrieved and have filed Crl. Rev. 75 per month so far as the first respondent is concerned and Rs. 30 per month so far as the second respondent is concerned. Aggrieved over this order, the revision petitioner has filed Crl. Rev. Case No. 278 of 1977. 4. The respondents are also aggrieved and have filed Crl. Rev. Case No. 470 of 1977 on the file of this Court for enhancement of maintenance amounts. 5. The fact that the revision petitioner and the first respondent are married admits of no doubt. The revision petitioner himself has admitted that he has married the first respondent. He has also admitted that the second respondent is his child born through the first respondent. Before me, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner husband contended the at that first respondent has been divorced by the revision petitioner, that a written Talaq was pronounced and that he has also paid the Talaq amount and also mahar amount and Idath amount, and therefore, the Magistrate should not have granted maintenance to the first respondent under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 6. The parties are Muslims. They are married according to their personal law by which they are governed. In Crl. Rev. Case No. 750 of 1976. Md. Hanif v. Soleema. I have had occasion consider the impact of section 127(3)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on section 125 of that Code. I have held in that case that section 127(3)(b) clearly controls section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Magistrate will not have jurisdiction to proceed under section 125 of the Code if the provisions under section 127(3)(b) have been complied with. 7. Mr. Gopinathan, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/husband also invited my attention to the decision in Smt. Zubedabi v. Abdul Kadar wherein the learned Judge of the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore took the same view that I have taken in the said revision petition. The learned Judge is also of the view that section 127 controls the provision under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is nothing in section 125 of prohibiting the husband from raising the plea that section 127(3)(b) has been complied with, and therefore, the Magistrate cannot pass an order under section 125 granting maintenance to the divorced wife. 8. There is nothing in section 125 of prohibiting the husband from raising the plea that section 127(3)(b) has been complied with, and therefore, the Magistrate cannot pass an order under section 125 granting maintenance to the divorced wife. 8. If there is evidence in enquiry under section 125 that the husband had already paid what was due to the wife under the personal law, the Magistrate is bound to consider that and if the husband is able to satisfy the Magistrate that he has paid the divorced wife what was required to be paid under the personal law, the Magistrate cannot proceed under section 125 and grant maintenance. Now, in this case the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner invited my attention to Ex. P-1 and also to Ex.P-1 (a), a translation of Ex. P-1 filed and relied on by the wife/first respondent before the lowerCourt. Ex.P-1 which is written in Urudu addressed to the wife by the husband shows that the husband has pronounced Talaq in writing. That fact is evident from the translation of Ex. P-1, which is Ex. P-1 (a) and which has not been objected to by the wife. On the other hand, Ex P-1 (a) the translated copy of Ex. P-1 is filed by the wife/first respondent herself. There is clear evidence that this Ex. P-1 has been received by first respondent and the amount has also been received by her. Her admission before the trial Court shows that she has received Rs. 800 viz., Rs. 500 towards mahar amount and Rs. 300 towards Idath amount. Mr. Govindan, learned Counsel for the first respondent pointed out that there is no evidence as to the amount fixed at the time of marriage, and prayed that the matter may go back to the trial Court. Per contra, learned Counsel, Mr. Gopinathan, stated that this amount of Rs. 800 has been received by the first respondent without any protest and the fact that she had not raised any objection is clear indication that the amount of Rs. 500 is fixed as mahar amount at the time of marriage. It is therefore, clear the husband-revision petitioner has complied with the provisions contained in section 127(3)(b) and that the first respondent/divorced wife has been paid what was required to be paid to her under the personal law. 500 is fixed as mahar amount at the time of marriage. It is therefore, clear the husband-revision petitioner has complied with the provisions contained in section 127(3)(b) and that the first respondent/divorced wife has been paid what was required to be paid to her under the personal law. In fact the learned Magistrate has also referred to this fact of payment of Rs. 800 towards mahar amount and the Idath amount in that order. Under those circumstances, I am of the view that the Magistrate's order granting maintenance to the wife/first respondent has to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 9. As regards the order granting maintenance to second respondent child is concerned, I am of opinion that the order has to be maintained as it is clearly admitted by the revision petitioner that the second respondent is his child. It should be noted that the revision petitioner has not taken back the second respondent born to first respondent through him and is not maintaining her. Under these circumstances, the second respondent will be entitled to maintenance. But, as I have earlier pointed out, Crl.R.C. No.470 of 1977 has been filed by the respondents herein for enhancement of maintenance amount. But, in view of the fact that I have held that the first respondent will not be entitled to maintenance as she has been divorced and paid mahar and Idath amount, Crl.R.C. No. 470 of 1977 has to be dismissed as far as the first respondent in Crl.R.C. No. 278 of 1977 is concerned. As regards the second respondent, I may point put that a sum of Rs.30 awarded by the trial Court is rather low having regard to the cost of living. I feel that a sum of Rs. 60 per month towards maintenance for second respondent/ minor child in Crl. R.C. No. 278 of 1977 and second petitioner in Crl. R.C. No. 470 of 1977 will meet the ends of justice. Here I may also point out that Mr. Gopinathan, learned Counsel for the petitioner says that he has been paying the maintenance amount for both the wife and child regularly till today. 10. In the result, Crl. R.C. No. 278 of 1977 is partly allowed and the order granting maintenance to first respondent wife is set aside and the Crl. R.C. No. 470 of 1977 is also partly allowed and a sum of Rs. 10. In the result, Crl. R.C. No. 278 of 1977 is partly allowed and the order granting maintenance to first respondent wife is set aside and the Crl. R.C. No. 470 of 1977 is also partly allowed and a sum of Rs. 60 is fixed towards maintenance to the second petitioner payable from the date of this order. Crl.R.C.No. 278 of 1977 is dismissed so far as second respondent is concerned and Crl. R.P.No. 470 of 1977 is dismissed so far as the first petitioner is concerned.