JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) - The matrix of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, Geeta Devi d/o Phool Singh, respondent-wife, has filed the petition u/s 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to “the Act”) (Annexure P1) against her husband Kulwant s/o Zile Singh (petitioner). The petitioner-husband contested her claim and filed the written statement (Annexure P2) to the main petition. The trial Magistrate partly accepted the petition and directed the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.4000/- per month to his wife and minor daughter as maintenance, vide impugned judgment dated 9.4.2011(Annexure P3). 2. Aggrieved thereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner-husband was partly accepted and the claim of maintenance of respondent-wife was negated. However, the maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs.2500/- per month was granted to her minor daughter, by means of impugned judgment dated 3.7.2014 (Annexure P4) by the appellate Court. 3. Sequelly, the petitioner-husband still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition to quash the impugned judgments (Annexures P3 and P4), invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC. That is how I am seized of the matter. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context. 5. Ex facie the argument of learned counsel for petitioner (husband) that since the respondent-wife has remarried with Balwan s/o Lala Ram, so, her minor daughter Anju is not entitled to maintenance allowance u/s 12 of the Act, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 6. As is evident from the record that initially, the marriage of respondent Geeta Devi was solemnized with petitioner Kulwant. After solemnization of the marriage, they resided together, cohabited as husband & wife and a female child Anju was born out of their wedlock. The respondent-wife has initially filed the petition u/s 12 of the Act. 6. As is evident from the record that initially, the marriage of respondent Geeta Devi was solemnized with petitioner Kulwant. After solemnization of the marriage, they resided together, cohabited as husband & wife and a female child Anju was born out of their wedlock. The respondent-wife has initially filed the petition u/s 12 of the Act. Section 20 postulates that while disposing of an application u/s 12, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by her and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may include the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any. 7. It is not a matter of dispute that Anju minor daughter, has born out of the wedlock of petitioner-husband. Therefore, he cannot escape his liability to maintain her. Meaning thereby, the appellate Court has examined the matter in the right perspective and correctly granted the maintenance to minor female child of petitioner-husband. Such impugned judgment (Annexure P4), containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in the exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.PC, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband, so, the impugned judgment deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as such. 10. Needless to mention that in case the minor child is getting any maintenance u/s 125 Cr.PC, the same would naturally be adjusted while calculating the amount of maintenance granted in the petition u/s 12 of the Act by the concerned Court. —————————