Judgment ( 1. ) ARGUMENTS heard. ( 2. ) BY order dated 27th July, 1999, passed by J. M. F. C. , Niwari, in Criminal Case No. 64/98, the maintenance petition of respondents stood rejected, who successfully challenged the same before the First A. S. J. , Tikam-garh, in Criminal Revision No. 120/99. Setting aside the order passed by learned J. M. F. C. the learned First A. S. J. , Tikamgarh, granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month to respondent No. 1 and at the rate of Rs. 150/-till the marriage to respondent No. 2, which is payable since the date of order. The aforesaid order passed by learned First A. S. J. , Tikamgarh, is in challenge, in this revision petition. ( 3. ) THE grant of maintenance to respondent No. 1 is being challenged on the ground that she is not legally wedded wife of the petitioner, and grant of maintenance to respondent No. 2 is being challenged on the ground of her attaining the majority. But, it is found admitted by petitioner in Paragraph No. 4 under cross-examination that respondent No. 1 is his legally wedded wife and female child is entitled for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even after attaining the age of majority, till she is married, as explained by Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim, reported in 1997 (3) Crimes 106 (SC ). The relevant portion of the aforesaid pronouncement runs as follows : "7. Indeed Section 3 (1) of 1986 Act begins with a non obstante clause "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force" and clause (b) thereof provides that a divorced woman shall be entitled to a reasonable and fair provision for maintenance by her former husband to maintain the children born out of the wedlock for a period of two years from the date of birth of such children, but the non- obstante clause in our opinion only restricts and confines the right of a divorce muslim woman to claim or receive maintenance for herself and for maintenance of the child/children till they attain the age of two years, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in that behalf. It has nothing to do with the independent right or entitlement of the minor children to be maintained by their muslim father. A careful reading of the provisions of Section 125, Cr. PC and Section 3 (1) (b) of the 1986 Act makes it clear that the two provisions apply and cover different situations and there is no conflict, much less a real one, between the two. Whereas the 1986 Act deals with the obligation of a muslim husband vis-a-vis his divorced wife including the payment of maintenance of her for a period of two years of fosterage for maintaining the infant/infants, where they are in the custody of the mother, the obligation of a muslim father to maintain the minor children is governed by Section 125, Cr. PC and his obligation to maintain them is absolute till they attain majority or are able to maintain themselves, whichever date is earlier. In the case of female children this obligation extends till their marriage. Apart from the statutory provisions referred to above, even under the Muslim Personal Law, the right of minor children to receive maintenance from their father, till they are able to maintain themselves, is absolute. " ( 4. ) THUS, the learned First A. S. J. , Tikamgarh, is found to have committed no illegality or impropriety in awarding maintenance to respondents by setting aside the order dated 27th July, 1999, passed by J. M. F. C. , Niwari in Criminal Case No. 64/98. 5 Consequently, this revision petition does not merit, which is accordingly disallowed and rejected at the stage of motion hearing stage itself.