JUDGMENT : CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J. 1. The present petition is maintained by the petitioners under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as =the Code') laying challenge to the order, dated 18.08.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan, H.P. in Criminal Revision No. 3-S-10 of 2013, whereby maintenance was declined to petitioner No. 2, Akansha Dhiman and the order dated 19.12.2012, in Criminal Case No. 53/4 of 2009, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, H.P., was partly modified. The petitioners are also seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount by altering the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan 2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the present petition are that, as per the petitioners (daughters of the respondent), the respondent herein and their mother are the husband and wife. The petitioners maintained a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, seeking maintenance from the respondent, on account of barbarous behaviour towards the petitioners and their mother, being meted out by the respondent. The petitioners, alongwith their mother, were compelled to leave the house of the respondent. Petitioner No. 2 was sent for coaching at Kota (Rajasthan) and subsequently she was selected for Engineering course at J.P. University, Vaknaghat, and for that her mother spent Rs.2.5 lac annually. When petitioner No. 1 was studying in 10th standard in Saint Luke's School, Solan, all expenses, viz., fee, day to day expenses, tuition fee, expenditure etc. were around Rs.20,000/- per month and the expenses were likely to increase as petitioner No. 1 was likely to pursue higher studies. As per the petitioner, the respondent did not pay a single penny to them since they were ousted and respondent is posted as Assistant Drug Licensing Authority at Solan and is getting salary to the tune of Rs.70,000/- per month. 3. The respondent, by filing reply to the petition, refuted the allegations made in the petition and raised preliminary objection qua maintainability of the petition, as petitioner No. 2 attained the age of majority, hence she is not entitled for maintenance. On merits, it is denied that the behaviour of the respondent was not barbarous towards the mother of the petitioner and it is also denied that he is earning Rs.70,000/- per month. However, it is averred that his salary is Rs.42,428/- per month. On merits, it is denied that the behaviour of the respondent was not barbarous towards the mother of the petitioner and it is also denied that he is earning Rs.70,000/- per month. However, it is averred that his salary is Rs.42,428/- per month. The respondent had admitted that petitioner No. 2 is studying in J.P. University, but, as she has attained majority, she is not entitled for maintenance. As per the respondent, earlier he was paying the fee of petitioner No. 2. The respondent has denied that petitioners require maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- per month and it is averred that expenditure of petitioner No. 1 is not more than Rs.4,000/- per month. The respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. The learned Trial Court framed the following points on 03.11.2012 for determination ?1. Whether the respondent has neglected and refused to maintain the petitioners, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the petitioners are unable to maintain themselves, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for maintenance, as prayed for? OPP. 4. Whether the petition of the petitioners is not maintainable in the present form? OPR. 5. Whether petitioner No. 2, being major, is not entitled for maintenance, as alleged? OPR. 6. Relief.? After deciding points No. 1 to 3 in favour of the petitioner and points No. 4 and 5 against the respondent, the petition was partly allowed and the respondent was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.8000/- per month to petitioner No. 1 and Rs.11,500/- per month to petitioner No. 2, totaling Rs.17,500/- per month from the date of filing of the petition, that is 22.09.2012. The respondent assailed the above order of the Trial Court. The learned Lower Revisionary Court partly allowed the revision and set aside the order of the learned Trial Court granting maintenance to petitioner No. 2, whereas order granting maintenance to minor petitioner No. 1 was confirmed, hence the present petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned Revisionary Court has awarded the maintenance amount without taking into consideration the fact that petitioner No. 2, Akansha Dhiman, has attained majority. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned Revisionary Court has awarded the maintenance amount without taking into consideration the fact that petitioner No. 2, Akansha Dhiman, has attained majority. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that as the petitioners are not yet married and are dependant upon the respondent, the remedy for the petitioners seeking maintenance is available under The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act?) and the respondent is not liable to pay maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Revisionary Court is just, reasoned and needs no interference. The leaned counsel for the petitioners, in rebuttal, has argued that the liability of the respondent does not end merely because petitioner No. 1 attained the age of 18 years. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, I have gone through the record in detail. 8. Admittedly, petitioner No. 2, Akansha Dhiman, has attained the age of 18 years and she is unmarried. It has also come on record that respondent, Kapil Dhiman, is earning handsomely and enjoying good status in the society, being Senior Class-1 Officer, in the State of Himachal Pradesh. It has further come on record that petitioner No. 2, Akansha Dhiman, since the very beginning has studied from good institutions and she has good life style, like her parents. Now, in these circumstances, the question is whether order passed by the learned Revisionary Court, by setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate granting maintenance under Section 125 of the Code to the daughter of the petitioner (Akansha Dhiman), is required to be interfered with and the order of the leaned Magistrate is required to be restored? On the above aspect, I have gone through the law in detail. 9. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mansi Vohra vs. Ramesh Vohra, 2013 (3) Criminal Court Cases 556 (Delhi), has held as under: ?6. This Court is also of the opinion that even in Jagdish Jugtawat (supra), the Supreme Court has held that maintenance petition filed by the major daughter even if she does not fall in one of the exceptions mentioned in Section 125 (1) (c) Cr. This Court is also of the opinion that even in Jagdish Jugtawat (supra), the Supreme Court has held that maintenance petition filed by the major daughter even if she does not fall in one of the exceptions mentioned in Section 125 (1) (c) Cr. P.C., would be still maintainable on a combined reading of both Sections 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 20 (3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. 7. Moreover, to ask the petitioner to now file an independent petition before the Family Court under Section 20 (3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 would not only cause her inconvenience but would also defeat her right to claim maintenance for the period Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceeding was pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Such an interpretation would, in certain cases where both Sections clearly overlap, create multiplicity of litigation. 8. In any event, it has been held in a catena of cases that nomenclature of a petition is irrelevant so long as a party is entitled to relief under any other section. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the ASJ is untenable in law. Accordingly, the same is set aside.? 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amarendra Kumar Paul vs. Maya Paul & others, 2009 (3) RCR (Criminal, has held as under: ?18. It is clear from the order of the learned Magistrate that no order of maintenance was passed in favour of the children after they attained majority. In that view of the matter, the question of recovery of any amount from the petitioners towards the maintenance granted to the children after they had attained majority does not arise. In this case the direction has been issued to recover the amount of maintenance only for the period prior to the sons' attaining majority and the daughters getting married and hence no interference with the impugned judgment, in this behalf, is called for.? 11. In this case the direction has been issued to recover the amount of maintenance only for the period prior to the sons' attaining majority and the daughters getting married and hence no interference with the impugned judgment, in this behalf, is called for.? 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another case titled Jagdish Jugtawat vs. Manju Lata & others, 2003 (2) Criminal Court Cases 565 (S.C.), has held as under: ??Thus, in view of the above, though it cannot be said that the order impugned runs counter to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. are applicable irrespective of the personal law and it does not make any distinction whether the daughter claiming maintenance is a Hindu or a Muslim. However, taking an over all view of the matter, I, with all respect to the Hon'ble Court, am cease to have the benefit of the provisions under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on attaining majority, though she would be entitled to claim the benefits further under the statute/personal law. But the Court is not inclined to interfere, as the order does not result in miscarriage of justice, rather interfering with the order would create great inconvenience to Respondent 3 as she would be forced to file another petition under sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the act of 1956 for further maintenance etc. Thus, in order to avoid multiplicity of litigations, the order impugned does not warrant interference.? … … … … … … … 4. Applying the principle to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it is manifest that the right of a minor girl for maintenance from parents after attaining majority till her marriage is recognized in Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the judgment/order passed by the learned Single Judge for maintaining the order passed by the Family Court which is based on a combined reading of Section 125, Cr.P.C. and Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. For the reasons aforestated we are of the view that on facts and in the circumstances of the case no interference with the impugned judgment order of the high Court is called for.? 12. For the reasons aforestated we are of the view that on facts and in the circumstances of the case no interference with the impugned judgment order of the high Court is called for.? 12. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Pathumma vs. Cholamarakkar, 2009 (1) Civil Court Cases 453 (Kerala) (DB), has held as under: ?11. The next question to be analyzed, in the facts as pleaded in the claim for maintenance, is whether the second petitioner is entitled to claim maintenance. As we have already stated above, unless it is established that the inability to maintain herself is on account of the physical or mental abnormality or injury, she will not be entitled to claim maintenance. From the pleadings, we find that more stress is given to the mental injury leading to the situation of the child remaining unmarried, on account of the dispute on paternity. That is not the requirement. Unless it is pleaded and established before the court that on account of such mental injury, the child is unable to maintain itself, she cannot maintain a valid claim before the court for maintenance. Since the Family Court has not addressed the issues in the proper perspective, we set aside the order in M.C. No.413/2002 and remit the matter to the Family Court for fresh consideration, in accordance with law. We make it clear that it will be open to the parties to amend the pleadings and adduce fresh evidence.? 13. The Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in Smt. Teejan Bai Chandrakar vs. Rajeshwari Chandrakar, 2009 (1) Civil Court Cases 253 (Chhattisgarh), has held as under: ?11. Proceeding under Section 125 of the Code is summary and provisional in nature for the purpose of speedy disposal of such matter in the interest of society. The object is not to punish a person for neglect to maintain those whom he is bound to maintain. The section provides only a speedy remedy by a summary procedure to enforce liability in order to avoid vagrancy. Its primacy object is to give social justice to women and children and to prevent them from destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves. These provisions provide a speedy remedy to those who are in distress.? 14. Its primacy object is to give social justice to women and children and to prevent them from destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves. These provisions provide a speedy remedy to those who are in distress.? 14. From the above, it is amply clear that: (a) that petitioner No. 2, Akansha Dhiman, was entitled for maintenance from her father under Section 125 Cr.P.C., till she attained the majority, as she was unable to maintain herself, being a student; (b) that petitioner No. 2, Akansha Dhiman, is entitled for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. till she attained majority, which she has now attained; (d) that petitioner No. 2, Akansha Dhiman, is unable to maintain herself; (e) that the respondent is having a very good income and he is also having two daughters, that is, the petitioners, as his children; and (f) that the mother of the petitioners is maintaining herself, as she is also working as Class-1 Officer. 15. Now the question arises whether in these circumstances when petitioner No. 2, Akansha Dhiman, has attained majority, the liability of the respondent comes to an end or not. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the petitioners have right of maintenance under The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and the same can be enforced by the competent Court and Magistrate has no powers to grant maintenance under the said Act. From the above, it is correct that order of the learned Revisionary Court holding the Magistrate was not having power to grant maintenance when petitioner No. 2, Akansha Dhiman, attained the age of majority, is as per the intent of the Legislature. But the intent of the Legislature, while framing The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, is also that the daughter above the age of 18 years, who is unable to maintain herself, is to be maintained by the father, if he has sufficient means. 16. In the case in hand, the father of the petitioners has sufficient means to maintain the petitioners. Now relegating to petitioner No. 2, Akansha Dhiman, if she is to be ordered to go to the competent Court under The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, this Court has to consider whether she will be in a position to maintain that petition, as she is unable to maintain herself. Now relegating to petitioner No. 2, Akansha Dhiman, if she is to be ordered to go to the competent Court under The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, this Court has to consider whether she will be in a position to maintain that petition, as she is unable to maintain herself. Therefore, this Court finds that the interests of justice would be met in case the respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand) to petitioner No.2, Akansha Dhiman, towards the litigation expenses to maintain a petition before a competent Court of law under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, by way of a cross bank draft, issued in her name within a period of one month from the date of disposal of the present petition. The respondent is further held liable to pay maintenance, as awarded by the learned Magistrate to petitioner No. 2, till three months from today or till the time the litigation expenses are paid to the petitioner to maintain petition for maintenance under The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, whichever is later. The arrears of maintenance, if any, will be paid by the respondent to the petitioner/daughter within a period of two months from today, positively, by way of a bank draft. 17 Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending application (s), if any.