JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition arises out of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P. C. filed by Kumari Shikha, minor daugther of Prahlad Rai non- petitioner No. 1 and others. On her application tiled through her next friend Kumari Sanjiv Lata. the learned Magistrate under his order dated August 16. 1982 made an order under section 125 (I) Cr. P. C. that the petitioner shall be paid by her father non-petitioner a sum of Rs. 300/- p.m from the date of the application. A revision petition was filed by the non-petitioner in the court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City which was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Jaipur City for disposal and the said Judge partly allowed the revision petition and reduced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 300/-p.m. to Rs. 100/- p m. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that monthly income of the non-petitioner Prahlad Rai Vyas is Rs. 1200/- and even after deductions, his income was Rs. 900/- p.m. Taking even that income there was no justification for reducing the amount of maintenance from Rs. 300/- p m. to Rs. 100/- p.m. According to him the petitioner was studying in a public school and her tuition fee was Rs. 75/- p m. It is difficult to maintain a minor daughter of her status even at Rs. 300/-. Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. I contends that divorce in between Smt. Sarla Vyas, mother of the petitioner Shikha and Prahlad Rai Vyas took place and Smt. Sarla Vyas is U.D.C. and she has her own income and means to support her minor daughter Shikha and the petitioner is residing with her mother and as a m fitter of strategy that an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. has been tiled not through her mother but through her sister Kumari Sanjiv Lata. According to him the mother is liable to maintain the minor child and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and to the fact that Kumari Shikha was residing with her mother and as aforesaid she was having her own means, if the learned Additional Sessions Judge has reduced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 300/- p.m. to Rs. ]00/- p.m. it cannot be said that any interference is called for. 3. 300/- p.m. to Rs. ]00/- p.m. it cannot be said that any interference is called for. 3. There is no dispute between the parties that Kumari Shikha is minor daughter of non-petitioner No. 1. the conditions necessary for an order wider sub-section (1) of Section 125 Cr. P. C. is that the father must have the sufficient means to maintain, but neglected or refused to maintain the minor legitimate or illegitimate minor child and such a child as aforesaid is unable to maintain herself. Merely because the mother is also earning, the father cannot escape the liability to maintain the minor child who is liable to maintain herself. Thus, in an application under Section 1.5 Cr. P. C. the fact that the mother is also earning but no order is sought against her under Section 125 Cr. P. C. cannot deprive the minor child of an order under Section 125 Cr. P. C. against the father if the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. The petitioner Kumari Shikha is minor and she has no income of her own to maintain herself The father, Prahlad Rai Vyas cannot insist that he will only maintain the minor child, if she lives with him. A look at the second proviso to section 125 (3) Cr. P. C. will show that proviso attracts only in a case of wife and the person against whom the order has been made under Section 125 (I) offers to maintain her on the condition of her living with him and that proviso is not attracted in the case of minor child and rightly so because the minor child cannot of her own live either with the mother or father. In case the father feels himself entitled to the custody of the minor child, he should tile an application under the law which governs the custody of minor children and he cannot insist that he can maintain the minor child only in case the minor child lives with him. All the necessary conditions are existing in the present case and the learned lower courts were right in holding that the petitioner is entitled to seek maintenance from her father. 4. The only question which now remains to be decided is as to whether the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge ordering the maintenance to be paid to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 4. The only question which now remains to be decided is as to whether the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge ordering the maintenance to be paid to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1001/- p.m. calls for any interference. The non-petitioner No. 1 Prahalad Rai Vyas has admitted that his monthly salary is Rs. 920/- and that after deductions of Provident Fund etc. the pay-packet was Rs. 823.10 p.m. He further states at page 7 of his statement as DW2 that besides this he has other income from the deposits in bank and his total income is Rs. 1200/- p.m. No doubt one of his kidneys is damaged but it is well known that a Government servant is entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses. Thus, taking into consideration the monthly income of the non-petitioner, in my opinion the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have reduced the amount from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 100/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case, l deem it just and proper if the petitioner is awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- p. M. 5. Consequently, this revision petition is partly allowed. The order of of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is modified to the extent that instead of Rs. 100/- the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 200/- as maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P. C. from the non-petitioner No. 1 Prahlad Rai Vyas. It may be stated that if there is any increase in monthly emoluments of the non-petitioner and if there is corresponding increase in the expenses for maintenance of the petitioner she can always move for the modification or the change in the order of maintenance.Revision partly allowed. *******