Judgment S. T. KHARCHE, J. ( 1 ) BY invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this petition has been filed by the wife and minor children taking an exception to the order dated 23-7-2002 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge in Judge in Criminal Revision no. 3 of 1999 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the said revision and quashed the order dated 30-11-1998 passed by the learned j. M. F. C. in Mis. Cri. Case No. 260 of 1996 granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month each to the wife and three children under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code ). ( 2 ) BRIEF facts are required to be stated as under : (a) The non-applicant/husband was working as a watchman in W. C. L. at patharkheda, district Betul and was getting Rs. 7,000/- per month towards his salary. Kamla is the wife who claims that her marriage was solemnized with the non-applicant about 30 years ago and both of them cohabited together for that large period in the Quarter of Western Coalfields Ltd. At patharkheda till the year 1991. Thereafter in the year 1991 itself the husband was transferred to W. C. L. At Durgapur where the couple resided in the Quarter allotted by the W. C. L. During the valid wedlock the couple is blessed with one son by name Gulab of the age of 20 years and four daughters by name lata the married daughter, Gayatri of the age of 21 years, Savitri of the age of 19 years Nirmala of the age of 16 years. (b) On 15-4-1996 the husband left the said quarter on the ground that he was being ill-treated in the home at the hands of his wife and son Gulab. Therefore, he started living separately from his wife. Ultimately, the wife served a notice dated 6-12-1996 on the husband mentioning therein that she and her children were refused and neglected by him and that all of them were unable to maintain themselves. The husband had given reply to the aforesaid notice on 14-12-1996 and denied the contentions of his wife. Therefore, he started living separately from his wife. Ultimately, the wife served a notice dated 6-12-1996 on the husband mentioning therein that she and her children were refused and neglected by him and that all of them were unable to maintain themselves. The husband had given reply to the aforesaid notice on 14-12-1996 and denied the contentions of his wife. The applicant/ wife therefore filed an application seeking maintenance on the ground that her husband having sufficient means has refused and neglected to maintain her and her daughters who are unable to maintain themselves. All these daughters were minor at the time of filing the application under section 125 of the Code for grant of maintenance. ( 3 ) THE wife Kamla (P. W. 1) examined herself only in support of her contentions, whereas the husband Samlaprasad (D. W. 1) examined himself and two witnesses, namely Dhundulal (D. W. 2) and Dnyaneshwar (D. W. 3) in support of his contentions. The learned Magistrate on appreciation of evidence has recorded a finding that the husband having sufficient means refused and neglected to maintain the wife and the children who were unable to maintain themselves and consequently granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month to each of the applicants 1 to 4 (wife and children) from the date of the application, i. e. 24-12-1996. The husband being aggrieved by this order carried revision before the learned Sessions Judge, which was registered as criminal Revision No. 3 of 1999. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on appreciation of the evidence had come to the conclusion that the wife has failed to prove that her husband had refused and neglected to maintain her and her daughters and also recorded a finding that the children who have become major would not be entitled to claim any maintenance. Consistent with these findings, the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision on 23-7-2002 and quashed the order passed by the learned Magistrate by which maintenance was granted, as stated above. This order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is under challenge in this application. ( 4 ) MR. Upadhyaye, learned Counsel, for the wife and daughters contended that it is not in dispute that the wife and the daughters are living in W. C. L. Quarter at Durgapur. This order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is under challenge in this application. ( 4 ) MR. Upadhyaye, learned Counsel, for the wife and daughters contended that it is not in dispute that the wife and the daughters are living in W. C. L. Quarter at Durgapur. The husband started ill-treatment and cruelty to the wife under the influence of liquor and on 15-4-1996 he left the said residential quarter and refused and neglected to maintain the wife and the minor children. He contended that the husband was served with a notice dated 6-12-1996 to which a false reply was given by the husband on 14-12-1996. He supports the order passed by the learned Magistrate by which maintenance was granted to the wife and the daughters. He contended that the evidence of kamla (P. W. 1) would plearly reveal that she was being treated with cruelty at the hands of her husband under the influence of liquor. He contended that the wife and the daughters are unable to maintain themselves and the husband has sufficient means to provide maintenance because he is working as a watchman in W. C. L. and regularly receiving the salary of Rs. 7. 000/- per month. He contended that in such circumstances the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge who allowed the revision on 23-7-2002 and quashed the order passed by the learned Magistrate by which maintenance was granted, cannot be sustained in law and deserves to be set aside. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the wife further contended that section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not fix the liability of parents to maintain children beyond attainment of majority, but right of a minor girl for maintenance from parents after attaining majority till her marriage is recognised under section 20 (3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not consider this law position and has committed an error of law in refusing to award maintenance even to the daughters who are minors and unmarried. In support of these contentions he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata}, 2002 (6) Bom. C. R. (S. C.)189 : 2002 (5) S. C. C. 422. ( 6 ) MR. In support of these contentions he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata}, 2002 (6) Bom. C. R. (S. C.)189 : 2002 (5) S. C. C. 422. ( 6 ) MR. De, learned Counsel, for the husband contended that Samlaprasad (D. W. 1) has testified to the fact that his wife used to beat him at times with the help of her son Gulab and made his life miserable in the matrimonial home at Durgapur and, therefore, he had to leave the residential quarter on 15-4-1996. He contended that the testimony of the husband has been corroborated in material particulars by the evidence of Dhundulal (D. W. 2) and dhayneshwar (D. W. 3), who are his neighbours residing at Durgapur. He contended that the husband had to file reports at the Police Station against the wife because she used to threaten him to kill. He, therefore, contended that the wife has miserably failed to prove that her husband has refused and neglected to maintain her, especially when the husband by his conduct showed that he was ever ready and willing to maintain her because he had paid an amount of Rs. 3000/- to her from time to time. He contended that since the refusal and neglect on the part of the husband has not been established, the wife is not entitled to claim maintenance and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in quashing the order passed by the learned Magistrate. ( 7 ) MR. De further contended that so far as the daughters Gayatri, Savitri and Nirmala are concerned, all of them have become major and the marriage of Gayatri has been solemnized on 17-4-2003 and it is the husband who had met the expenses of the marriage by providing cash of Rs. 2 1,000/- prior to the marriage. He, therefore, contended that the daughters are also not entitled to claim maintenance unless each of the daughter files proceeding for maintenance especially when refusal and neglect on the part of the husband (father) has not been established. In support of his submissions, he relied on the decision of this Court in (Sayyed Jabbarali Sayyad Ahmed Ali v. Saheba Fatima sayyed Jabbar Ali, 2002 Bom. C. R. (Cri.) (N. B.) 425 : 2002 (1) Mh. L. J. 623. In support of his submissions, he relied on the decision of this Court in (Sayyed Jabbarali Sayyad Ahmed Ali v. Saheba Fatima sayyed Jabbar Ali, 2002 Bom. C. R. (Cri.) (N. B.) 425 : 2002 (1) Mh. L. J. 623. ( 8 ) THIS Court has given thoughtful consideration to the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. It is necessary to reproduce section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which contemplates as under:"order of maintenance of wives, children and parents : (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refused 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. PROVIDED that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in Clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed to sufficient means. " ( 9 ) SIMPLE reading of the aforesaid provision of law would reveal that the wife and the minor children would be entitled to claim maintenance if they succeed in establishing that the husband or the father having sufficient means refused and neglected to maintain them who are unable to maintain themselves. ( 10 ) IN the present case, it is not in dispute that the marriage of Kamla was solemnized with Samlaprasad about 30 years ago prior to the filing of maintenance application. It is also not in dispute that the couple lived happily ini- tially in W. C. L. Quarter at Patharkheda. ( 10 ) IN the present case, it is not in dispute that the marriage of Kamla was solemnized with Samlaprasad about 30 years ago prior to the filing of maintenance application. It is also not in dispute that the couple lived happily ini- tially in W. C. L. Quarter at Patharkheda. It is also not disputed that the couple is blessed with five children including the son Gulab, who is major and residing separately at Nagpur. Out of the four daughters one daughter by name lata has already been married and the three daughters, namely Gayatri, savitri and Nirmala were minors at the time of filing of maintenance application. It is also not disputed that the husband was transferred from Patharkheda to Durgapur and the husband along with his wife and children started living in the quarter of W. C. L. at Durgapur. It is also not disputed that the husband left the residential quarter on 16-4-1996 and started living separately and thereafter the wife had filed the application claiming maintenance. ( 11 ) THE learned Magistrate on appreciation of the evidence held that the wife has proved that her husband having sufficient means refused and neglected to maintain her who is unable to maintain herself and consequently granted maintenance to the wife. It is relevant to note that the husband is working as a watchman in W. C. L. and drawing the regular salary of Rs. 7,000/- per month. Therefore, it is obvious that he has sufficient means to provide maintenance. What is to be seen is whether he has refused and neglected to maintain his wife. In this context, the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded the finding that the wife has failed to establish that she was being ill- treated in the matrimonial home at the hands of her husband. ( 12 ) THE testimony of Samlaprasad (D. W. 1) and the two witnesses namely dhundulal (D. W. 2) and Dhanyeshwar (D. W. 3) who are his neighbours, would show that it is the wife who used to make assault on her husband with the help of her son Gulab, who is major and lives separate. The wife has also admitted in her cross-examination that she had received the amount of Rs. The wife has also admitted in her cross-examination that she had received the amount of Rs. 3,000/- from her husband on different dates and therefore the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly drew the conclusion that there was no intention on the part of the husband to neglect and refuse to maintain his wife. The husband was required to leave the matrimonial home on 16-4-1996 under the compelling circumstances and he was also required to file the report at the Police Station wherein allegations have been made by him that his wife had threatened him to kill and used to assault him with the help of son Gulab. ( 13 ) IN Syed Abdul Jabbar, 2002 (2) Mh. L. J. 623, cited supra, this Court has held that the wife must prove neglect and refusal on the part of the husband and the allegation of ill-treatment cannot be substantiated on the basis of general allegations by wife in absence of any details thereof. This ratio is applicable in the present case because the wife has come with general allegations against her husband that he used to ill-treat her under the influence of liquor. No details of any incident have been furnished by her and therefore a different view cannot be taken than the one taken by the learned Additional sessions Judge that the wife has failed to prove refusal and neglect on the part of her husband. If that be so, then it is clear that unless she proves refusal and neglect on the part of her husband, she would not be entitled to claim maintenance. Therefore, the finding of the learned Additional Sessions judge on this point deserves to be enfirmed. ( 14 ) THE matter does not rest here. It is not in dispute that when the application for claiming maintenance was instituted in the Court of the learned magistrate, Gayatri was shown to be of the age of 16 years, Savitri was shown to be of the age of 15 years and Nirmala was shown to be of the age of 12 years. It is also clear from the testimony of Kamlabai that she deposed in terms of the contents of her application and, as such, it is undisputed position that all the daughters/applicants No. 2 to 4 were minors and unmarried. It is also not in dispute that the marriage of Gayatri has been solemnized on 17-4-2003. It is also clear from the testimony of Kamlabai that she deposed in terms of the contents of her application and, as such, it is undisputed position that all the daughters/applicants No. 2 to 4 were minors and unmarried. It is also not in dispute that the marriage of Gayatri has been solemnized on 17-4-2003. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has clubbed his finding so far as grant of maintenance to the wife and the daughters is concerned and observed that the daughters were also not entitled to claim maintenance, since the wife has failed to establish that her husband had refused and neglected to maintain them and especially when the wife admitted that she had received the amount of Rs. 3,000/- from him from time to time. This finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be sustained in law. ( 15 ) THE learned Counsel for the wife rightly relied on the decision of Supreme court in Jagdish Jugtawats case, 2002 (6) Bom. C. R. (S. C.) 189 : 2002 (5) s. C. C. 422, cited supra, wherein ratio has been laid down that though section 125 does not fix liability of parents to maintain children beyond attainment of majority, but right of a minor girl for maintenance from parents after attaining majority till her marriage is recognised under section 20 (3) of hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Therefore, on combined reading of the two provisions, it was held that the High Court was justified in upholding the order of the Family Court by which it granted maintenance under section 125 to the daughter even after her attaining majority but till her marriage taking the view that it would avoid multiplicity of proceed- ings as otherwise the party would be forced to file another petition under section 20 (3) for further maintenance. ( 16 ) IN the present case, all the three daughters Gayatri, Savitri and Nirmala were unmarried and minors and therefore it is obvious that Samlaprasad being their father cannot avoid payment of maintenance to them. Simple payment of meager sum of Rs. 3,000/- from time to would not be sufficient to draw the conclusion that he did not refuse and neglect to maintain the minor daughters who are unable to maintain themselves due to tender age. Simple payment of meager sum of Rs. 3,000/- from time to would not be sufficient to draw the conclusion that he did not refuse and neglect to maintain the minor daughters who are unable to maintain themselves due to tender age. Therefore, it is obvious that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge refusing to grant maintenance to the minor unmarried daughters cannot be sustained in law and deserves to be set aside. ( 17 ) IN the circumstances, this application partly succeeds. The impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge refusing to grant maintenance to the wife is hereby confirmed, whereas the order refusing to grant maintenance to the minor unmarried daughters is hereby quashed and set aside and the order passed by the Magistrate is restored. It is made clear that so long as Savitri and Nirmala are unmarried, the respondent samlaprasad shall pay maintenance to them at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month from the date of application till they are married and shall also deposit the entire arrears of maintenance together with the arrears of maintenance of Gayatri from the date of application till the date of her marriage i. e. 17-4-2003. The entire arrears to be deposited in this court within four weeks. In case of failure, the wife would be at liberty to move this Court for contempt, if any. Partly allowed.