JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against the judgment dated 7.1.88 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Jaipur.allowing in part the application under section 125 Cr. P.C. filed by the respondent Smt. Amina, and granting maintain of Rs. 250/- to Smt. Amina and Rs. 150/- for her daughter, total Rs. 400/- per month, w.e.f. 26.5 1986. 2. The appellant Abdul Hameed was married to respondent Smt Amina in accordance with Muslim Law and custom, in 1972. Since the respondent was minor, she continued to stay with her parents till 1976. Thereafter, she went to live with her husband (Abdul Hameed), the appellant. A daughter was born from the wedlock. Thereafter, the appellant Abdul Hameed started to ill-treat the respondent and therefore,she had to file an application under section 125 Cr P.C. which was decided by the Judicial Magistrate on 6.2.1979, rejecting her claim for maintence, but awarding maintenance @Rs. 15/- from 17.5.1977 to 5.2.1979 and Rs. 35/- from 6.2.1979 per month onwards. Thereafter also, the respondent Smt. Amina did not receive any amount of maintenance for her daughter as well and ultimately, she filed the present petition under section 125 Cr. P.C. before the Family Court, on 26.5.86 Notice was issued and thereafter, after recording evidence, learned Judge, Family Court, granted maintenance, as aforesaid. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has very vehemently argued that application under section 125 Cr. P.C. was not maintainable because earlier application filed by the respondent, under section 125 Cr. P.C. with regard to maintenance for herself, had been dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 6.2.1979 and that the respondent did not peeler any appeal thereafter and the order dated 6.2 1979 had become final. Even as against maintenance granted to the daughter, the application under section 125 Cr. P.C. is not maintainable and the application should have been filed under section 127 Cr P.C. but since no application under section 127 Cr. P.C. bad been filed nor the application had been amended, no relief could have been granted even with regard to the maintenance to the daughter. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the whole matter and have also considered the judgment of the learned court below as also perused the record of the case. 5. P.C. bad been filed nor the application had been amended, no relief could have been granted even with regard to the maintenance to the daughter. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the whole matter and have also considered the judgment of the learned court below as also perused the record of the case. 5. In the petition filed before the Family Court, Jaipur, under section 125 Cr.P.C. it has been mentioned that the appellant had contracted second marriage and he did not want to support the respondent, his wife. She has been living with her parents but since her father has died and mother is an old lady, it is not possible to support herself and her daughter. It has further been asserted in the petition that after 1976, the respondent was doing her level best to live with the appellant but he refused and started to give beating and ill-treated her The respondents allegation made in the petition under section 125 Cr. P.C. that the appellant Abdul Hamid has contracted second marriage, has not been denied in the written statement filed by her husband, but it has been asserted that after the order dated 6.2.72 passed by the Judicial Magistrate because the wife did not come to the husbands house, he had to go for a second marriage in October, 1979. Section 125 Cr P.C. itself mentions in Explanation that if a husband has contracted marriage with another woman o^ keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wifes refusal to live with him Since this ground was nor available to the wife when she had filed the earlier application under section 125 Cr. P.C. and obviously therefore, there could be no finding on this aspect of the matter. Hence, even if the principles of res judicata maybe applicable, they will nor apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, it is not necessary for us to decide as to whether the principles of res-judicata are applicable in matters regarding application under section 125 Cr. P.C. Therefore, we are of the opinion that application under section 125 Cr. P.C. with regard to the maintenance of the wife herself was maintainable. 6. As regard the maintenance for the daughter, we are of the opinion that this is a very technical objection. P.C. Therefore, we are of the opinion that application under section 125 Cr. P.C. with regard to the maintenance of the wife herself was maintainable. 6. As regard the maintenance for the daughter, we are of the opinion that this is a very technical objection. Parties are not represented by counsel before the Family Court, and no prejudice has been caused to either party as the parties have led evidence with regard to the quantum of maintenance, and merely because Section 127 Cr. P.C. has not been mentioned in the petition, the respondent cannot be deprived of her right to claim en-chanced maintenance for her daughter after nine years. 7. As regards quantum of the maintenance, learned counsel for the appellant has not seriously challenged the finding of the Judge, Family Court, before us and having gone through the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the Family Court was right and justified in granting maintenance amounting to Rs. 250/- for the respondent Smt. Amina and Rs. 150/- for her daughter, total Rs. 400/- per month, from the date of application i.e. 26.5.86. 8. In this view of the matter, we do not find any force in this appeal. The same is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.Appeal dismissed. *******