ORDER The order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, is called in question in this petition by Shankaregowda-sole respondent. He is the legally wedded husband of the 1st respondent herein and father of 2nd respondent. 2. The learned judge of the Family Court, on an application filed by the respondents herein under Section 125, Cr.P.C., has granted Rs.4,000/- as maintenance to be paid to the 2nd respondent from the date of petition till her marriage, vide order dated 31.10.2012. It is this order which is called in question in this petition on various grounds as set out in the revision petition. 3. Learned counsel, Sri A.V. Gangadharappa has vehemently argued that on a plain reading of Section 125, Cr.P.C., it is evident that even an unmarried daughter is entitled to be maintained till she attains majority only and that no maintenance is payable to her after attaining majority. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife has relied on a decision rendered in the case of JAGADISH JUGTAWAT .v. MANJULATA & OTHERS reported in (2002) 5 SCC 422 . Referring to the earlier decision rendered in the case of NOOR SABA KHATOON .v. MOHD.QUASIM ( AIR 1997 SC 3280 ), a Bench consisting of three Hon’ble Judges of the apex court in the case of JAGADISH JUGTAWAT has specifically held as follows: ‘A Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-S.125-Though S.125 does not fix liability of parents to maintain children beyond attainment of majority but right of a minor girl for maintenance from parents after attaining majority till her marriage is recognized under S.20(3) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act-Therefore, on a combined reading of the two provisions held, High Court was justified in upholding the order of Family Court, by which it granted maintenance under S.125 to the daughter even after her attaining majority but till her marriage, taking the view that it would avoid multiplicity of proceedings as otherwise the party would be forced to file another petition under S.20(3) for further maintenance-Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, S.20(3)’ The said decision rendered by the Bench consisting of three Hon’ble Judges of the apex court is a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 5. 5. The parties in the present case are Hindus and they are governed by Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act insofar as maintenance is concerned Drawing the said analogy, the Hon’ble apex court has held that an unmarried daughter is entitled to be maintained not only till she attains majority, but till she gets married. In this view of the matter, the learned judge of the family court has considered all aspects in detail after recording oral and documentary evidence considering the status of the parties, their income and requirements, Rs.4,000/- is awarded as compensation is neither excessive nor exorbitant. Hence no interference is called for and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. In the result, I pass the following order : ORDER The revision petition is dismissed. If any arrears of maintenance is found to be paid or deposited, as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, nothing comes in the way of the learned judge of the Family Court to take coercive steps in order to recover the same and pay to the unmarried daughter. In the circumstances, I.A.I/14 does not survive for consideration and it is accordingly rejected.