AMAR SARAN, J. Heard Shri V. P. Mathur, learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri D. S. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 3. 2. This application was filed by the applicant on 5-8-2002. The prayer in this application was for quashing the order dated 29-6-2001 passed by 2nd Additional Judicial Magistrate, Bansi, District Siddharthnagar whereby the application for grant of maintenance to Gaurav Ji Pathak, from O. P. No. 3 through his mother Smt. Usha Pathak was refused and the order passed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Siddharthnagar dated 24-6-2002 dismissing the Criminal Revision against the aforesaid order, and also for grant of maintenance to the applicant from the date of application. 3. The application for maintenance from opposite party No. 3 was moved by the applicant through his mother on 26-7-1997. At that time the applicant was about nine years of age. Now almost seven years have elapsed thereafter and the applicant has not received a single paisa as maintenance from the opposite party No. 3. 4. The revisional Court has dismissed the revision against the order refusing maintenance passed by the lower Court on two grounds: (i) that there is a finding of the lower Court that the applicant Gaurav Ji Pathak is not the son of opposite party No. 3 and (ii) that as Usha Pathak was a Basic Health Worker, hence she could maintain Gaurav Ji Pathak and there was no need for opposite party No. 3 to maintain Gaurav Ji Pathak. 5. Both these findings are clearly perverse. I have gone through the entire judgment dated 29-6-2002 passed by the 2nd Additional Judicial Magistrate, Bansi. There is absolutely no finding in the entire judgment that Gaurav Ji Pathak was not the son of Gopal Ji Pathak. No doubt, this argument was raised on behalf of Gopal Ji Pathak, but the lower Court has not given any such finding that Gaurav Ji Pathak was not the son of Gopal Ji Pathak. 6. The learned counsel for the O. P. No. 3 has sought to contend that O. P. No. 3 has stated in his written statement that he was already married to Smt. Sheela in 1977, and the applicant was married to one Durg Vijay Tiwari, resident of village and post Gaderuva. However, Sri Durg Vijay Tiwari contracted tuberculosis, and had parted from his wife. However, Sri Durg Vijay Tiwari contracted tuberculosis, and had parted from his wife. In his written statement, O. P. No. 3 also admits that Smt. Usha was posted in his village Nasirganj in 1985 and applicant was the Pradhan of that village from 1982 to 1995. Significantly as per the birth certificate of the applicant Gaurvav, he was born in 1988. This would be the time, when Smt. Usha would have been residing in Nasirganj. If as O. P. No. 3 has himself contended that the earlier husband of Smt. Usha, Durg Vijay Tiwari had contracted T. B. and had left Smt. Usha for his village Gaderuva. This period when Smt. Usha was posted in Nasirganj where the O. P. No. 3 was the Pradhan would be the period when access to that alleged husband would have been absent. In these circumstances some connection between Smt. Usha and O. P. No. 3 could not be ruled out. Also opposite party No. 3 himself has mentioned that he had made certain applications and representations on behalf of Smt. Usha to the Director, Medical Education and Chief Medical Officer etc. These applications also suggest some kind of liason between the two, as ordinarily the O. P. No. 3 would not have moved any application on behalf of the applicant if she were a complete stranger in his life. 7. Furthermore, there would be little reason for a woman to raise such a contention by claiming a certain man to be her husband who gave birth to her son, in case there was no relationship or marriage between the parties. 8. As Smt. Usha is not claiming any maintenance for herself, the case of Gaurav Stands on a different footing. Even if, Smt. Usha is unable to prove her legal marriage with O. P. No. 3, Gaurav could still claim maintenance, as Section 125 (1) (b) obliges a father to pay maintenance for both his legitimate as well as illegitimate minor child. 9. Therefore, the conclusion of the Sessions Judge that there is some findings of the lower Court that Usha and Gopal Ji were not married and, therefore, no maintenance whatsoever could be granted to Gaurav Ji Pathak is based on a complete misreading of order of lower Court and against the provisions of law. 10. So far as the other finding the Section 125 Cr. 10. So far as the other finding the Section 125 Cr. P. C. casts no obligation on the father to maintain a legitimate or illegitimate minor child, if the mother is able to maintain the child is concerned, the finding is highly questionable. 11. In this context, the relevant portion of Section 125 Cr. P. C. are quoted below: "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 as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct. " 12. The reasonings of both the Courts below that liability is cast on the wife to maintain the minor child are totally erroneous, and amount to making a travesty of the legal provisions. The first and basic liability under Section 125 Cr. P. C. is always on the father or husband to maintain his son or his wife. If Section 125 Cr. P. C. treated a husband and wife both on an equal footing, as was the position taken by the Courts below, then there would have been a clause, that if a husband is unable to maintain himself, then the wife, if she has sufficient means, would be obliged to maintain him. But there is no such averment in Section 125 Cr. P. C. The above quoted provision is for "maintenance of wives, children and parents. " A plain reading of the section shows that the liability is always "his" (i. e. the husbands) and not hers (i. e. the wifes ). The findings of both the Courts below are, therefore, based on a complete misunderstanding of the plain text of Section 125 Cr. " A plain reading of the section shows that the liability is always "his" (i. e. the husbands) and not hers (i. e. the wifes ). The findings of both the Courts below are, therefore, based on a complete misunderstanding of the plain text of Section 125 Cr. P. C. and are misconceived in law. 13. In this view of the matter, this application succeeds and is allowed. The case is remanded back to the trial Court, who shall consider the prayer for maintenance of the applicant Gaurav Ji Pathak from the date of application or from the date of order, whichever the Court in its judicial discretion considers more appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case and in the light of the observation made hereinabove. The Court concerned shall take all measures to decide the proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P. C. within three months, if possible. The lower Court may also consider awarding interim maintenance in accordance with the decision of the apex Court in Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat, (1985)4 SCC 337 , as by now Gaurav Ji Pathak, the applicant would be nearing the age of 17 years and unless immediate orders are passed in this case, the unfortunate minor child would be denied maintenance from his father, which may be his right, and a neglectful father should never be allowed to defeat the right for maintenance of a minor son by taking advantage of laws all too frequent delays. 14. The application is allowed as above. Application allowed. .