JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal under Section 19 Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur dated November 12, 1991 by which the appellant has been directed to make payment of maintenance to his minor daughter Kumari Mumtaj till she attains the age of 18 years. 2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that according to Mohammedan Law Kumari Mumtaj has attained the age of puberty i.e., 13 years, in the year 1990 and as such the appellant is not bound to make payment of maintenance after she has attained the age of puberty. 3. There is no force in this contention. The application for maintenance was moved under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code It is specifically provided that the father is bound to maintain his minor child. Minor has been defined in the explanation given below Sub-section (1) as under: "Minor means a person who under the provisions of Indian Majority Act, 1975 (Act No. IX of 1975) is deemed not to have attained his majority." It has been held in Kumari Shikha v. Prahlad Rai, 1987(2) R.L.R. 497 that personal law is not applicable in the proceedings under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. 4. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The same objection was raised by the appellant in his earlier S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 9/88, decided on May 10, 1988. By this order, the said objection was repelled and the case was remanded. It would be best to quote here the following observations made in this case: "It was further contended by Mr. Mehta that the parties being Mohammedans, the case is now governed by the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. Actually, while granting maintenance to children under Section 11 Criminal Procedure Code, the personal law of the parties has no application whatsoever. In this respect, reliance may be placed on Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore ( AIR 1970 SC 446 ) wherein it has been held that Section 11, Criminal Procedure Code provides a summary remedy and is applicable to all persons belonging to all religions and has no relationship with the personal law of the parties. However, after this decision, he Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 has come into force but that relates to the claims of Muslim Women. However, after this decision, he Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 has come into force but that relates to the claims of Muslim Women. The provisions of that Act do not apply to the cases of minor children as the right of maintenance granted to such children is independent of the right which may be available to their mothers. If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his legitimate or illegitimate minor child whether married or not, unable to maintain itself or his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter, who has attained majority), such a minor child can be granted maintenance under Section 11 Criminal Procedure Code Reference in this connection may be made to Nazi Farzand Ali v. Mst. Noorjahan (1988 RLW (1) 179) ." It is not in dispute that this order of the learned Single Judge was not further challenged in any manner. The same objection cannot again be raised in this appeal. 5. The learned Counsel further contends that the respondent be directed to hand over the custody of Kumari Mumtaz and such a prayer has been made in the memo of appeal. It is clearly mentioned in the end of the impugned order that the appellant has filed a separate petition under Section 25, Guardian and Wards Act and it is still pending. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that by order dated 18th December, 1991 passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 142A/ 90, Abdul Jabbar v. Akila Bano , this application has been dismissed and no appeal has been filed against this order. There is no question of deciding the controversy regarding the custody of minor in proceedings under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is summarily dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******