JUDGMENT B.K. NAYAK, J. : In this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the petitioner challenges the judgment dated 20.03.2008 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.3, Bhubaneswar in Criminal Revision No.3/74 of 2007/2006 confirming the order passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in Criminal Misc. case No.123 of 2004 granting monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- in favour of present opposite party No.1 and monthly maintenance of Rs.1,000/- each in favour of opposite party Nos.2 to 5 under Section 125, Cr.P.C. 2.Opposite party Nos.1 to 5 filed the Criminal Misc. Case No.123 of 2004 in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar under Section 125, Cr.P.C. on the assertions that opposite party No.1 was the wife of the petitioner their marriage was solemnized on 12.05.1981 in a Church at Khurda Road and from the date of marriage, they resided together and out of their wedlock four daughters, opposite party Nos.2 to 5 were born. Since opposite party No.1 could not bear a male child she was ill-treated by the petitioner mentally and physically and in order to have a male child the petitioner threatened to go for a second marriage and accordingly kept one P. Laxmi as his second wife and neglected to maintain the opposite parties, who were having no income of their own. Opposite party No.1 also suffered from paralysis and was unable to move. The petitioner works in the East Cost Railways as a gateman earning a monthly salary of Rs.7,500/-. Besides, he was having agricultural income of Rs.25,000/- per annum from his landed properties. 3.The petitioner filed his objection admitting his marriage with opposite party No.1 and further admitting that opposite party Nos.2, 3 and 4 were his daughters born through opposite party No.1. It was his specific plea that opposite party No.1 developed extra marital relationship out of which opposite party No.5 was born. The allegations of neglect and refusal to maintain the opposite parties was denied and it was further stated that since opposite party No.1 deserted him, he filed Original Suit No.4 of 1993 for restitution of conjugal rights which was decreed on 07.08.1995, but opposite party No.1 did not comply with the said decree and continued to stay away and was living in adultery. 4.Evidence was led only on behalf of the claimants-opposite parties. The petitioner did not lead any defence evidence. 4.Evidence was led only on behalf of the claimants-opposite parties. The petitioner did not lead any defence evidence. On consideration of the evidence led by the opposite parties, the learned S.D.J.M. came to the finding that opposite party No.5 was the legitimate daughter of the petitioner through opposite party No.1 and that the petitioner kept another lady in order to get a male child and drove the opposite parties away and having sufficient means to maintain he refused and neglected to maintain the opposite parties, who had no source of income or livelihood and accordingly granted maintenance @ 1,500/- per month in favour of opposite party No.2 and Rs.1,000/- each in favour of opposite party Nos.2 to 5. The aforesaid order of the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar was challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.3/74 of 2007/2006 which was ultimately dismissed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C. No.3, Bhubaneswar by his judgment dated 20.03.2008. 5.During the course of hearing the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that opposite party Nos.2, 3 and 4 had already become major at the time of filing of the maintenance application and there being no averment and proof to the effect that they were unable to maintain themselves by reason for any physical or mental abnormality or injury as required under Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 125, Cr.P.C., they were not entitled to maintenance. The contention has been raised on the basis of the age of the present opposite party Nos.2, 3 and 4 as described in their maintenance application filed before the learned S.D.J.M. However, the orders of the Courts below reveal that no such contention was raised by the present petitioner either before the learned S.D.J.M. or before the learned revisional Court and no such objection was raised in the show cause filed by the present petitioner before the learned S.D.J.M. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, however admits that opposite party Nos.2 and 3 had already attained majority on the date of filing of maintenance application. But so far as opposite party No.4 is concerned, it is submitted, with reference to the date of birth of opposite party No.4 as spoken to by P.W.1, that she had not attained majority by the time of filing of the maintenance application. But so far as opposite party No.4 is concerned, it is submitted, with reference to the date of birth of opposite party No.4 as spoken to by P.W.1, that she had not attained majority by the time of filing of the maintenance application. 6.Admittedly, opposite party Nos.2, 3 and 4 are unmarried daughters and it is also admitted by the learned counsel appearing for them that opposite party Nos.2 and 3 were already major on the date of filing of maintenance application. 7.In a similar case a division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported in 1993 (II) OLR 546; Ainul Ali Khan v. Sagar Begum alias Suka Begum and three others have held as follows : “3. Sec.125 of the Code deals with maintenance to be granted to wives, children and parents. So far as children are concerned, both legitimate and illegitimate children are covered by Sub-sec. (1) of Sec.125 of the Code. In the case of minor child, an order of maintenance can be passed if it is unable to maintain itself, irrespective of the marital status. But that is not the case in the case of those who have attained majority. Married daughters are excluded from the scope of Sub-sec. (1) of Sec.125 of the Code. No order of maintenance can be passed in favour of those who have attained majority unless by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury the child is unable to maintain itself. The word ‘children’ in the selection refers to both legitimate and illegitimate children. Provision is made for maintenance of minor child whether married or not, unable to maintain itself. Clause (c) of Sub-sec. (1) however makes special provision for maintenance of major children, not being married daughters, where they are unable to maintain themselves by reason of any physical or mental abnormality, or injury. Under the 1898 Code, Sec.488 did not define ‘child’ and there were conflicting views as to whether the expression ‘child’ would include a major child or not. The controversy does not subsist in view of the express language used in Sec. 125 of the Code. 4.In view of the fact that the statement of the appellant has practically gone unchallenged, we find substance in the plea of Mr. Patra so far as respondents 2 to 4 are concerned. The controversy does not subsist in view of the express language used in Sec. 125 of the Code. 4.In view of the fact that the statement of the appellant has practically gone unchallenged, we find substance in the plea of Mr. Patra so far as respondents 2 to 4 are concerned. In the claim petition itself the respondents 2 and 3 have been shown to be majors. The exceptions enumerated in Sec.125 (1) (c) are not pleaded in their case. So, irrespective of their marital status, they are not entitled to maintenance.” Similar view has also been expressed in (1995) 9 OCR-15 Upendra Mohapatra v. Smt. Kanchanbala Mohapatra and 1996 (I) OLR 522; Keshaba Patra v. Jamuna Patra. 8.It is admitted during hearing that opposite party Nos.2 and 3 were already major on the date of filing of maintenance application and in the claim application their age has been described as 22 years and 20 years respectively. There is no averment in the claim application that they were unable to maintain themselves because of any physical or mental abnormality, or injury. Therefore they are not entitled to maintenance. Even though this contention was not raised before the Courts below it being a legal question based on admitted facts it is entertained in this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C.. So far as opposite party No.4 is concerned it appears from the judgment of the learned S.D.J.M., that P.W.1 who is none other than opposite party No.3 and the elder sister of opposite party No.4, stated in her evidence that opposite party No.4, Helan Cecilia Das was born on 29.01.1987 which means that by the time of filing of the maintenance application in the year 2004, she had not completed the age of 18 years and therefore had not attained majority. Maintenance in her favour has therefore been rightly granted by the learned S.D.J.M.. 9.In the light of the discussions made above, the CRLMC is partly allowed and the order of maintenance in favour of opposite party Nos.2 and 3, namely, Elizabeth Das and Gladya Annetta Das only passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar and confirmed by the revisional Court is set aside. The CRLMC accordingly stands disposed of. CRLMC disposed of.