JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated 21-5-93, passed by the Judge of the Family Court, Jodhpur, by which the learned Judge of Family Court awarded the maintenance to the wife Rs. 500/-per month and to the minor daughter Miss Rubina @ Rs. 300/- per month with effect from the date of the application. 2. Smt. Jahanara filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband Mohammed lqbal in the Court of the learned Judge of the Family Court, Jodhpur, for the grant of maintenance. It was alleged in the application that she was married to Mohammed lqbal on 247-84 at Jodhpur as per the Muslim customs and rites. The husband used to take liquor daily and, also, used to regularly abuse her. He, also, gave beatings to her mercilessly. A demand for scooter was, also, made by the husband, which could not be fulfilled by her brother and the husband gave beatings to her on this count and ultimately, after six-seven months of the marriage, the husband left her at her parents' house. At that time she was pregnant and gave birth to Miss Rubina in her parents' house. It maintain herself while the non-applicant (husband) has sufficient source of income of about Rs. 5000/- per month and, therefore, she may be awarded the maintenance for herself as well as for her minor daughter Miss Rubina. The petitioner-husband did not appear during the trial inspite of service and, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were taken against him. The appellant, in support of her case, examined herself as AW 1 and produced in evidence AW 2 Salim Khan. The learned Judge of the Family Court relied upon the evidence produced by the applicant and after determining the income of the husband at Rs. 5000/- per month, awarded maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month to the wife and Rs. 300/- per month to the minor daughter by his judgment dated 21-5-93. Though the order for the grant of maintenance was passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court on 21-5-93 but the petitioner failed to comply with the order without any sufficient cause and, therefore, an application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the wife and the daughter for the issuance of Warrant for the Levy of the amount amounting to Rs. 28,600/- and in case of default in the payment of this amount it was prayed that the no-applicant may be sent to civil jail. This application was opposed by the petitioner and the learned Judge of the Family Court, by his order dated 8-11-93, after giving ample opportunity to the petitioner to make payment, ordered for his imprisonment of five days for each month's default in making payment of the maintenance allowance. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has given divorce to the non-petitioner in the year 1989 and a divorcee he had no knowledge regarding passing of the order 21-5-93 granting maintenance in favour of the non- petitioners and the miscellaneous petition has been filed within ninety days of the date of passing the order. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the non- petitioner is in the employment and has sufficient means to maintain herself and, therefore, she is not entitled for the grant of maintenance. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend his case and the ex-parte proceedings were taken against him and the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set- aside on this ground. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 3(1)(b) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Right of Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act, 1986') the children are entitled for the maintenance only for a period of two years and not thereafter and since Miss Rubina has already completed two years of age, therefore, she is, also, not entitled for any maintenance. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend his case and inspite of the service effected on him, he did not appear and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court does not require any interference. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend his case and inspite of the service effected on him, he did not appear and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court does not require any interference. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the non-petitioner is not employed anywhere and, therefore, she is entitled for the grant of maintenance and so far as the question of maintenance to the minor daughter is concerned, she, in her own right, can claim the maintenance. So far as the maintenance under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act, 1986, is concerned, that was the right of the mother to get maintenance to suckle the child for a period of two years and not the right of the minor. A preliminary objection has, also, been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the present miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable as a revision petition is provided under the Family Courts Act against an order of granting maintenance and no revision was filed by the petitioner within the time and, therefore, the present miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which has been filed by the petitioner in order to avoid payment of maintenance allowance, is not maintainable. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Before deciding the question on merit, I would first like to deal-with the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. As per the provisions of Section 19 of the Family Court Act, a revision petition against the order granting maintenance is maintainable. The petitioner has a remedy of filing a revision against the order dated 21-5-93 but he did not file any revision against this order and has filed the present miscellaneous petition challenging the order. The remedy under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be availed only when there is no other remedy available to the petitioner. The petitioner has a remedy of filing a revision against the order dated 21-5-93 but he did not file any revision against this order and has filed the present miscellaneous petition challenging the order. The remedy under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be availed only when there is no other remedy available to the petitioner. When a remedy of revision against the order of granting maintenance under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act was available to the petitioner, which he did not avail-of, then the miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable because the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised when no other remedy is available 4nd the order is required to be passed to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. When the petitioner has not availed the remedy available to him under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, the present miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, therefore, not maintainable. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could have been converted into a Revision Petition and if the petitioner would have been entitled for any relief and this petition would have been filed it within the time. The order was passed on 21-5-93 while the present miscellaneous petition has been filed on 2-3-94, i.e., after about 81/2 months of the date of passing the order and no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed along with this miscellaneous petition. The revision petition, if filed, would have been barred by time and, therefore, in order to avoid that difficulty, the petitioner has filed this miscellaneous petition which is not maintainable as the other remedy of revision is available to him under Section 19 of the family Courts Act and as such the miscellaneous petition deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. 5. Even on merit, the petitioner has got no case. Neither the question of divorce was agitated before the trial Court nor was he denied the reasonable opportunity to defend his case and the ex-parte proceedings were rightly taken against him. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be allowed to agitate those grounds which were not taken by him during the trial. Even from the evidence, produced by the applicant, the case of neglecting the wife and the minor daughter has been proved. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be allowed to agitate those grounds which were not taken by him during the trial. Even from the evidence, produced by the applicant, the case of neglecting the wife and the minor daughter has been proved. The income of the petitioner has, also, been proved and the petitioner is liable to maintain his wife and the minor daughter. As per Section 125 Cr.P.C. even as per the Muslim Personal Law it is the personal obligation of the father to maintain his minor son and daughter. The right of maintenance of the minor children is their independent right and has nothing to do with the right of the wife granted under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act, 1986. This is a right of the wife during the weaning period and the amount payable during the weaning period by the father is payable to the wife for reward to suckle the child and has no connection with the independent right of the minor child. The petitioner is, therefore, liable to pay maintenance till the daughter attains the puberty or she is married, whichever is earlier. 6. Now, so far as the question regarding giving divorce or the employment of the wife after the order of granting maintenance has been passed, is concerned, the petitioner, if so likes, may move an application under Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. for cancellation or alteration of the order granting maintenance on account of change in the circumstances and the Family Court will consider his application and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. But so far as the present case is concerned, the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court does not require any interference on the subsequent change in the circumstances. 7. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this miscellaneous petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******