JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - Order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela granting maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month to respondent No. 1 Sagra Begum @ Suka Begum and Rs. 100/- each per month to the other respondents, namely, Saliman alias Lalita, Haliman alias Baisakha and Rukhsana is the subjec-matter of challenge by Ainul Ali Khan, The respondents had claimed maintenance in terms of Section 125 . of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the Code). The learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that the claimants-respondents have squarely failed to place any material in support of their claim of maintenance u/s 125 of the Code. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that after elaborate evaluation of the materials placed by the contesting parties, the learned Judge, Family Court, has awarded the maintenance which is on the lower side and therefore, no interference is called for. Mr. Patra for the appellant in addition to his attack about the lack of acceptable materials in support of the plea of maintenance, has highlighted that the specific case of the appellant that the respondents 2 to 4 were major and married has not been denied, and therefore, they are not entitled to any maintenance. Our attention is drawn to paragraph 4 of the deposition of the appellant who was examined as OPW No. 4. On a reading of the statement made by the appellant examined as OPW No 4, we find that there is not even a suggestion contradicting the assertion made about marriage of respondents 2 to 4. 2. Mr. Sahu for the respondents submits that mere non-suggestion on that aspect does not take away the effect of the claimants' case particularly when there was no pleading in the objection filed by the appellant. 3. Section 125 of the Code deals with maintenance to be granted to wives, children and parents. So far as children are concerned, both legitimate and illegitimate children are covered by Sub-section (1) of Section 125 of tile Code. In the case of minor child, an order of maintenance can be passed if it is unable to maintain itself, irrespective of the marital status But that is not the case in the case of those who have attained majority. Married daughters are excluded from the scope of Sub-section (1) of Section 126 of the Code. In the case of minor child, an order of maintenance can be passed if it is unable to maintain itself, irrespective of the marital status But that is not the case in the case of those who have attained majority. Married daughters are excluded from the scope of Sub-section (1) of Section 126 of the Code. No order of maintenance can be passed in favour of those who have attained majority unless by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury the child is unable to maintain itself. The word 'children' in the section refers to both legitimate and illegitimate children. Provision is made for maintenance of minor child whether married or not unable to maintain itself. Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) however makes special provision for maintenance of major children, not being married daughters, where they are unable to maintain themselves by reason of any physical or mental abnormality, or injury. Under the 1898 Code, Section 438 did not define 'child' and there were conflicting views as to whether the expression 'child' would include a major child or not. The controversy does not subsist in view of the express language used in Section 125 of the Code. 4. In view of the fact that the statement of the appellant has practically gone unchallenged, we find substance in the plea of Mr. Patra so far as respondents 2 to 4 are concerned. In the claim petition itself the respondents 2 and 3 have been shown to be majors. The exceptions enumerated in Section 125(1)(c) are not pleaded in their case. So, irrespective of their marital status, they are not entitled to maintenance. So far as respondent No. 1 is concerned, we find that the learned Judge, Family Court has brought on record sufficient material to accept her plea of being entitled to maintenance. In the claim petition, respondent No. 4 Rukhsana has been stated to be about 17 years of age. She will be entitled to maintenance till she attains majority. Since she was stated to be about 17 years, without indication of date of birth and there is no material to disbelieve that she was about 17 years of age, we feel that payment of a consolidated sum of Rs. 800/- (Rupees eight hundred) would meet the ends of justice. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. D.M. Patnaik, J. 5. I agree.