Judgment Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.-Instant revision impugns the order dated April 23,. 1997, of the learned Judge, Family Court, Jaipur whereby the application of the non-petitioner under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed and the maintenance awarded earlier to the petitioner and her children was ordered to be stopped from the dates mentioned in the impugned decision. 2. Admitted facts are that the learned Family Court passed the order on 19th August, 1993 and awarded maintenance in the sum of Rs. 400/-per month to the petitioner and Rs. 500/-per month each to her son and daughter. The non-petitioner moved an application under Section 127, Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Family Court praying therein mat son of the petitioner Vikrant became major on December 25, 1993 and her daughter shall attain majority on October 31, 1997, therefore, the maintenance allowances be ordered to be stopped. It was further prayed that as the petitioner has been serving in Rungta Hospital, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, therefore, the order awarding maintenance to her be cancelled. The application was contested by the non-petitioner. The learned Trial Court decided the application vide order dated April 23, 1997 which has been called in question in the instant revision. 3. 1 have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the impugned order and the legal position. 4. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be useful to examine the provisions under Section 125(1), Criminal Procedure Code which provides thus - “125. 3. 1 have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the impugned order and the legal position. 4. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be useful to examine the provisions under Section 125(1), Criminal Procedure Code which provides thus - “125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents--( 1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain: .(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself or .(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself , or .(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself , or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself , a Magistrate of the First Class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to way the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct.” 5. A perusalof above provision demonstrates that legitimate or illegitimate child who has attained majority is entitled to maintenance, where such child is by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself and the wife is entitled to maintenance only when she is unable to maintain herself 6. In the case on hand, the learned Family Court recorded the statement of the petitioner, who admitted having served in the Rungta Hospital and getting Rs. 2,000/-per month as salary. There is no dispute that Vikrant attained majority on December 25, 1993 whereas Swati attained majority on October 30, 1997. 7. Mr. S.N. Kumawat, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently canvassed that the impugned order could not have been passed in the facts and circumstances of the case under Section 127, Criminal Procedure Code. Reliance has been placed on Sneh Prabha vs. Ravinder Kumar, 1995 Supp. (3) Supreme Court Cases 440, where their Lordships of tine Apex Court directed the husband to pay Rs. 4,000/-towards maintenance of the two daughters. 8. Reliance has been placed on Sneh Prabha vs. Ravinder Kumar, 1995 Supp. (3) Supreme Court Cases 440, where their Lordships of tine Apex Court directed the husband to pay Rs. 4,000/-towards maintenance of the two daughters. 8. The case cited by the learned Counsel is distinguishable on the ground that in the case of Sneh Prabha (supra), two daughters were of 8 and 10 years of age. 9. In Vanmala vs. H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta, (1995) 5 SCC 299 = IV (1995) CCR 1 (SC), cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the parties obtained divorce by mutual consent and it was directed that the divorced wife who had not remarried is entitled to maintenance under the explanation of Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code cannot be debarred by invoking Section 125(4), Criminal Procedure Code. This case is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. 10. Another case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is Chhenu Devi vs. Loona Ram, 1996 Cr. LR (Raj.) 383, where this Court indicated that purpose to enact Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code is to impart social justice to women and children by providing speedy supply of food, clothing and shelter. In that case the husband took another woman as his wife. Therefore, it was directed that wife was entitled to maintenance. 11. Case of Vasudev Pardasani vs. Smt Nirmala, RLW 1996 (3) Raj. 425 = 11 (1996) DMC 309, is also not applicable in the case on hand as in this case the provisions of Sections 126(1) and Section 125 have been interpreted and nothing has been discussed in respect of Section 127, Criminal Procedure Code. 12. On the other hand Mr. K.N. Shrimal, learned Counsel appearing for the non-petitioner supported the impugned order and contended that in view of Sub-section (1) of Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code the approach of the learned Court below cannot be said as improper or illegal. The children of the petitioner are entitled to maintenance till the age of majority, whereas the wife is entitled if she proved that she is unable to maintain herself Reliance was placed on Kumari L. Usharani & Ors. vs. D.S. Lakshmaiah, 1993 Cr. U 982 = 1 (1993) DMC 269= 11(1993) CCR 1244, where it was laid down that the children who are not having physical or mental abnormality cannot claim maintenance after attaining majority. 13. vs. D.S. Lakshmaiah, 1993 Cr. U 982 = 1 (1993) DMC 269= 11(1993) CCR 1244, where it was laid down that the children who are not having physical or mental abnormality cannot claim maintenance after attaining majority. 13. Under Section 127, Criminal Procedure Code on proof of changed in the circumstances, the Court may make such alterations in the allowances as it thinks fit. In my view the learned Family Court has jurisdiction to revise the earlier order passed under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code and in the facts and circumstances of the case no illegality was committed by the learned Family Court in passing the impugned order. 10.14. Consequently, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.