Judgment 1. Present revision petition has been filed against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh vide which the application moved on behalf of the minor children for the grant of maintenance has been allowed. 2. The petitioner who is father of the minors has challenged the order firstly on the ground that under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short the Act) legitimate or illegitimate child is entitled to claim maintenance from his or her father or mother so long as the child is minor and therefore, as in the present case the minors are being looked after by their mother it was not open to the Court to have directed the maintenance claim to be paid by the petitioner as the word used in the Act is or and not and . 3. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived. The petition has been filed claiming maintenance from father and not from the mother and therefore, the maintenance is not claimed from both the parties. Even otherwise, word or has to be read as and and in case both the father and mother are capable to maintain the child the liability can be fixed on both, therefore, this contention is rejected. 4. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of divorce the father and mother of the minor children had entered into an agreement that the minors would be maintained by the mother and she would not claim any maintenance from the petitioner. 5. This contention cannot be accepted as the mother and father by way of mutual agreement could not take away the statutory rights available to the minors under the Act and no agreement which is adverse to the interest of minors can be enforced in law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the purpose of Section 20 of the Act is that the children should be maintained and once the children are being maintained by the mother, there is no occasion for the Court to have granted maintenance amount in favour of the minors. This contention is also totally misconceived. The petitioner being a father cannot be absolved from his liability to maintain the children and meet their needs. 7. This contention is also totally misconceived. The petitioner being a father cannot be absolved from his liability to maintain the children and meet their needs. 7. There is no illegality in the impugned order which may call for interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. 8. Dismissed.