ORDER Can a father, unable to maintain himself claim maintenance under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, from his married daughter ? That is the short question that has been raised in this revision. 2. In M.C. No. 28 of 1979 the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Avanigadda, by his order dated 5th December, 1979, held against the father, but in Crl.R.P. No. 48 of 1979 the Additional Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam, held in favour of the father and remanded the enquiry for determining the claim on merits. 3. The petitioner in this Court, resident of Aswaraopalem, is the only daughter of the respondent Thota Sriramulu, aged 70 years and resident of Nangegadda, both in Divi, Taluk. The respondent was the owner of an extent of Ac. 2.36 cents of wet land in Chodavaram village which he conveyed in favour of Chandramma his wife and mother of the petitioner in the year 1949. Chandramma died intestate in 1954. Disputes arose between the petitioner and her father shortly prior to July, 1978, which necessitated the petitioner to file O.S. No. 208 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Avanigadda, for an injunction. There was an interim injunction granted by the Court on 15th July, 1978, against the respondent and the respondent carried that order in appeal in C.M.A. No. 48 of 1978 on the file of the District Court, Machilipatnam. While those civil proceedings were pending, the respondent in this revision claimed maintenance under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, by his application dated 10th August, 1979. The petitioner raised, amongst other grounds, the objection that a father cannot seek an order for maintenance under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, against her a married daughter. Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code provides (only material portions extracted): “If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain. (a) ……………….. (b) ……………….. (c) ……………….. (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of First Class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his father at such monthly rate etc”. 4. The main submission made by Mr. (a) ……………….. (b) ……………….. (c) ……………….. (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of First Class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his father at such monthly rate etc”. 4. The main submission made by Mr. B.S.A. Swamy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that a father can under section 125 , Criminal Procedure Code, seek order for maintenance only against his son and not against a married daughter and stress is laid on the use of the word “his” occurring in section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. 5. Section 2 (y) , Criminal Procedure Code, provides that words and expressions used herein and not defined but defined in the Indian Penal Code , have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that Code, section 8, Indian Penal Code, reads as follows: “Gender.-The pronoun ‘he’ and its derivatives are used of any person, whether male or female”. As a similar definition is not found in the Criminal Procedure Code , this definition under section 8 , Indian Penal Code, governs the situation and the word ‘Ms’ occurring in section 125 (d), Criminal Procedure Code, should be given the meaning “her” as well. If section 125 (d), Criminal Procedure Code, is read in that fashion a father can ask for maintenance against his married daughter as well if he has established that he is unable to maintain himself and that the married daughter having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain him. Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, does not contain any provision prohibiting a father from claiming maintenance from a married daughter. The submission that once a daughter is married, she belongs to a different family and has, therefore, no liability to maintain her father, has no merit in it. The daughter does not cease to be the daughter after she is married into another family. If she has sufficient means of her own, the obligation is, cast on her to look after her parents who are otherwise unable to maintain themselves. 6. The parties are Hindus, governed by section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956. Under the said Act, a Hindu is bound, during his or her lifetime, to maintain his or her aged or infirm parents. 6. The parties are Hindus, governed by section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956. Under the said Act, a Hindu is bound, during his or her lifetime, to maintain his or her aged or infirm parents. Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, provides for awarding maintenance to avoid destitution of an aged parent. The submission of Mr. Swamy is that the respondent can file a civil suit and claim maintenance under section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, but such a right is not available to him under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. Reading the provisions of section 125 , Criminal Procedure Code, as interpreted above, it is open for an indigent father to claim maintenance under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code as well from a married daughter, in Raj Kumari v. Yasoda Devi, 1978 Crl.L.J. 600, Gurnam Singh, J., in dealing with a claim made by a mother for maintenance from her married daughter observed: “The words “any person” and “such person” show that the liability to provide maintenance to the father and mother, is that of the son and not of the daughter”. In reaching that conclusion, he relied upon the report of the Joint Committee which, in their interpretation has referred only to the son and not to the daughter as well. This is because the pronoun “his” is also to be interpreted as “her” depending on the sex of the issue against whom maintenance was being claimed. It cannot be that if there are no sons but daughters, the parents have to remain destitute though the married daughters have sufficient means of their own to provide for maintenance of their destitute parents. The recommendation made by the Joint Committee should, therefore, be understood in the context that the word “his” has reference to the word ‘her’ also. The second reason given by Gurnam Singh, J., is that section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,made a specific provision casting an obligation on the daughters also to maintain the parents but that a similar specific provision has not been made under section 125 , Criminal Procedure Code, because of the manner in which the word ‘his’ has to be interpreted reading that word in an appropriate manner keeping in view section 8, Indian Penal Code. I do not feel myself persuaded to agree with the view expressed by Gurnam Singh, J., that an otherwise destitute parents cannot claim an order for maintenance against a married daughter who has sufficient means and neglects or refuses to maintain her destitute parents. 7. As there is no conflict between the personal Law and the provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, it is unnecessary to consider the decisions in Umar Hayath Khan v. Mahaboobnissa alias Munavar Sultana, (1975) MLJ. (Crl.) 570 and Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore, (1970) 1 S.C.J. 176: (1970) MLJ. (Crl.) 94: (1970) L.W. (Crl.) 39: (1970) 1 S.C.R. 365 : A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1066.” The revision is dismissed. The Magistrate, Avanigadda. is directed to dispose of the petition for maintenance on merits expeditiously. R.S. ----- Petition dismissed.