ORDER 1. Heard. Being aggrieved with an order dated 6th January, 2006 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Trck) Pichhore, District Shivpuri in Criminal Revision No. 35/05, this petition has been filed by the petitioner/husband against the respondents, who are the wife and minor daughter (respectively) of the petitioner. Vide the impugned order the learned Judge has affirmed the order passed by JMFC, Khaniyadhana in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 6/04 dated 1.1.2005, wherein the learned Magistrate has awarded maintenance, amounting to Rs.700/- per month to respondent No, 1, the wife of the petitioner and Rs.400/- per month to respondent No.2, his minor daughter. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent No.1 filed one application under section 125 of CrPC on behalf of herself as well as respondent No. 2 claiming maintenance from the petitioner. After hearing both the parties, the aforementioned orders have been passed by both the Courts below, in which the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that both the parties are living separately with their mutual consent, hence, under section 125 (4) of CrPC, the respondents are not entitled for any claim of maintenance, was negated. Hence, this petition. 3. During the course of arguments, Shri Agrawal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has drawn the attention of the Court at application dated 27 .1.2004 filed under section 125 of CrPC, mutual agreement dated 13.12.2001, affidavit dated 19.12.2001 executed by respondent No. 1 and at para 15 of the impugned order and has submitted that as per the agreement, an amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid by the petitioner for the respondents and they are living separately with mutual consent, hence under section 125 of CrPC respondents are not entitled for any amount of maintenance. 4. As nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents despite service, hence, they could not be heard. 5. As per the statement dated 26.7.2004 of Sunita recorded during trial and the affidavit dated 19.12.2001, it appears that the respondent No. 1 was major when the agreement was executed on 13.12.2001. 4. As nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents despite service, hence, they could not be heard. 5. As per the statement dated 26.7.2004 of Sunita recorded during trial and the affidavit dated 19.12.2001, it appears that the respondent No. 1 was major when the agreement was executed on 13.12.2001. The relevant part of the agreement dated 13.12.2001 goes as under: ^^ge ldy iapksa ds le{k dey ,oa lquhrk us vkil LosPNk ls ,d nwljs ls laca/k lekIr djus dk fu.kZ; fy;kA dey us lquhrk ds fy, nl gtkj :i;s uxn iapksa ds le{k Hkj.k&iks'k.k okLrs fn;sA rFkk lquhrk ,oa dey dh iq=h n"kksnk mez 1 o'kZ ds Hkj.k&iks'k.k rFkk "kknh okLrs nl gtkj :i;s xzk- cSad ckekSj dyk¡ esa lkof/k la;qDr [kkrs esa tek djk;s tk;saxsA tks dq- n"kksnk laj{kd nsopun] lwjr flag] Hkwir flag ,oa jktkjke ds lkFk la;qDr [kkrs esa jgsaxsA^^ (Before all the witnesses Kamal and Sunita have decided to separate themselves from each other. Kamal has given Rs.10,000/- for maintenance to Sunita. Kamal will deposit Rs.10,000/- for the maintenance of minor daughter Ku. Jasoda in the joint account of Jasoda, Dvchand, Surat Singh, Bhupat Singh and Rajaram). The relevant part in para 2 of the affidavit dated 19.12.2001 goes as under: ^^vc eq> "kiFkdrhZ o esjs ifr dey esa vkil esa vPNs laca/k ugha gSa blfy, eq> "kiFkdrhZ us xzke esa iapk;r cSBkyh Fkh ftlesa eq> "kiFkdrhZ us viuh ethZ ls dey iq= Jh nsopUn ds ikl vc ugha jguk pkgrh gw¡A iapksa ds le{k eq> "kiFkdrhZ dk ngst tks esjs firk lwjt flag us fn;k Fkk lHkh lkeku e; crZuksa ds okil dj fn;k gS vkSj eq> "kiFkdrhZ dks nl gtkj :i;s Hkj.k iks'k.k gsrq fn;s gSaA o esjh nl ekg dh cPph n"kksnk dks nl gtkj :i;s Hkh mldh ns[kjs[k ,oa "kknh gsrq esjs ifr dey us fn;s gSa vc eq> "kiFkdrhZ dk esjs ifr ls fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dksbZ laca/k ugha gSA** (Now there are no good relation in between deponent and her husband Kamal and before the Panch they have decided not to live together. Before the Panch (witnesses) all the articles given in dowry have been returned to the executant and Rs.10,000/- have been given for her maintenance. Rs.10,000/- have also been given by Kamal for the maintenance of minor daughter Jasoda. Now there are no relation in between Kamal and executant). Before the Panch (witnesses) all the articles given in dowry have been returned to the executant and Rs.10,000/- have been given for her maintenance. Rs.10,000/- have also been given by Kamal for the maintenance of minor daughter Jasoda. Now there are no relation in between Kamal and executant). In para 6 of her statement dated 26.7.2004 respondent No.1 has admitted that in the affidavit dated 19.12.2001 her photo has been affixed and she had put her thumb impression over there. Although, she denied the aforesaid agreement and the execution of the affidavit in earlier part of statement, however, her aforesaid statement in para 6 goes against earlier part of her statement. On perusal of the statement dated 31.12.2004 of Shivkumar Pathak (DW 4), it appears that this notary has also admitted that the affidavit was executed by the respondent No.1 in his presence. Witnesses Bhupat Singh (DW 2) and Mangal Singh (DW 3) have also given their statements in support of the agreement Ex. D-1 dated 13.12.2001 that it was executed in their presence and they have put their signatures on the same. Despite this against the recitals of aforesaid two documents executed by respondent No.1, the approach of both the Courts below that the amount was not paid as written in these documents does not appear to be sound. Thus, these documents can be considered against the interest of respondent No.1 and as provided in section 125 (4) of CrPC when both the parties are living separately with mutual consent, the wife is not entitled for any claim of maintenance. 6. Section 125 (4) of CrPC deals with the interest of the wife only. It does not deal with the interest of any minor child. If wife is living separately with mutual consent with her husband the interest of minor child cannot be affected adversely. Even the aforesaid two documents which have been executed by respondent No.1, are on behalf of respondent No.2, the, minor daughter, they cannot be considered against the interest of respondent No.2, who being minor is entitled for claim of maintenance against her parents. In view of this, the amount of Rs.400/- per month as awarded to respondent No.2 against the petitioner does not appear erroneous. In view of the aforesaid, petition deserves to be allowed in part. In view of this, the amount of Rs.400/- per month as awarded to respondent No.2 against the petitioner does not appear erroneous. In view of the aforesaid, petition deserves to be allowed in part. Consequently-- (i) the petition is allowed in part and the impugned, order awarding Rs.700/- per month as maintenance to respondent No.1 is set aside. (ii) The impugned order of awarding Rs.400/- per month as maintenance to respondent No.2 is maintained and the petition is dismissed so far as this part is concerned. This amount will be paid to respondent No.2 through respondent No.1 as admittedly respondent No.2 is living with respondent No.1.