Judgment P.K.Sinha, J. 1. This is an application u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code, in short) praying therein to quash order dated 22.8.2002 recorded by the learned first Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Criminal Revision No. 243 of 2000 by which the revisional Court had set aside order dated 28.6.2000 recorded in Maintenance Case No. 15-M of 1994 and remitted back the matter for fresh consideration by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners in Magisterial court, the minor daughter and son of Opposite Party No. 1 (In short O.P.), the petitioner here, had filed a petitioner u/s. 125 of the Code for their maintenance. Following facts were riot dispute :- (i) Mother of the petitioners and wife of O.P. had died allegedly by violent means and in a criminal case filed in that regard, O.P. was facing trial as accused. (ii) The minor children of the O.P. were allowed to live with their maternal grand father, a retired personnel, who was maintaining them. (iii) O.P. was a science teacher in a Government school. (iv) It was brought on the record that the opposite party had made a fixed deposit of Rs. 50,000.00 in favour of his children to show his bona fides, and concern for them. 3. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate had held, finding that the petitioner was willing and ready to maintain his minor children and to keep them with him, his willingness manifest by his act of making a fixed deposit of Rs. 50,000.00 , the application u/s. 125 of the Code filed on behalf of the petitioners through their maternal grand father was not fit to be allowed. 4. The Revisional Court did not find the order to be sustainable and also noticed that the same Court earlier had passed an order allowing custody of the minor children to the O.P. which was also tested in revision and that order was set aside and remitted back to the learned Magistrate for a fresh decision. The Revisional Court also did not find that by making a deposit of Rs. 50,000.00 (in fixed deposit) in the name of minor children, the OP. had shown his intention for maintaining them because he still was in custody of the money, actually had paid nothing to the minors, and could withdraw the amount on maturity. 5. The Revisional Court also did not find that by making a deposit of Rs. 50,000.00 (in fixed deposit) in the name of minor children, the OP. had shown his intention for maintaining them because he still was in custody of the money, actually had paid nothing to the minors, and could withdraw the amount on maturity. 5. Shri Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel for O.P./petitioner has submitted that right from the lower Court the case of the O.P. was that he was neither neglecting nor was refusing to maintain his minor children and wanted, as father, to live with them. It was argued that in case it was found that the O.P. was neither neglecting nor refusing to maintain the person claiming maintenance, no order against him u/s. 125 of the Code could be passed. Learned counsel submits that O.P./petitioner even in this Court renewed his offer to maintain the children. Learned counsel also pointed out that the O.P./petitioner had not remarried as yet which also showed his intention and willingness to live with his children and to maintain them who was quite capable to do so. Shri Giri submitted that in view of the aforesaid legal position the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate had rightly dismissed the application which order was set aside by the Revisional Court without application of mind. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the petitioners in the lower court, Opposite Parties No. 2 and- 3 here, have argued that mere declaration of intention to be willing to maintain the children was not enough rather that willingness should be converted into practice and the O.P./petitioner should have brought on the record some materials showing that he actually was doing something to maintain his children. It was submitted that simply saying that since the children were living with their maternal grand father, not with the petitioner, the petitioner was not liable to maintain them and would be willing to do so only if they were brought to live with him would not absolve the O.P. Other point was that the learned revisional Court had not given any order for maintaining the minors but simply had remitted back the matter to the learned lower court to be decided in accordance with law. To this learned counsel, Shri Giri, remarked that the learned Revisional Court had given observations which had left little discretion with the lower Court. To this learned counsel, Shri Giri, remarked that the learned Revisional Court had given observations which had left little discretion with the lower Court. 7. The law clearly says that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his minor children, as mentioned u/s. 125 of the Code, including some others so entitled to be maintained, the Court could order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his dependant. This right of maintenance to a dependent does not accrue only if he or she is living with the person liable to maintain, but even if the dependent is living else where. It is difficult to say that the circumstances of this case do not justify the minors living with their maternal grand father. However, for custody of children, it should be left open to be decided if an application is filed under appropriate law for that purpose. 8. In the case of Mannava Satyawati V/s. Mannava Malleswara Rao, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 259, relied upon by the opposite parties, the Supreme Court had held that because the wife and children had left the house on their own, was no. ground to disentitle them to maintenance. 9. The only condition that is to be satisfied while granting a relief under Sec. 125 of the Code is that the person entitled to maintain another having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain him/her which dependent is unable to maintain himself/herself. Depositing an amount as much as Rs. 50,000.00 in fixed deposit can hardly provide any maintenance to the children, the money remaining in the bank which could be withdrawn on maturity or even before maturity, by the person depositing it. 10. In so far as the learned Revisional Court having made some observations which could bind the hands of the lower Court is concerned, such observations are made by the higher Courts mainly with a view to decide the matter at hand and when the matter is remitted back, the lower Court is expected to decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law, keeping in view the relevant observations of the superior Court. 11. Since the matter has been remitted back to the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger who is in seisin of the matter, the learned Magistrate will decide the matter, afresh, in accordance with law. 12. 11. Since the matter has been remitted back to the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger who is in seisin of the matter, the learned Magistrate will decide the matter, afresh, in accordance with law. 12. In view of what has been discussed above, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. 13. It is made clear that whatever observations have been made in this order, are solely for the purpose of deciding the matter in hand and would not bind the learned Magistrate in any manner, who will decide the matter remitted back to that Court in accordance with law.