JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Petitioner invokes inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of judgment/order dated 21.05.2013 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner against order dated 14.12.2012 of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (2nd Additional Munsiff), Jammu whereby maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month has been awarded in favour of the respondent. 2. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner solemnized the marriage with Mst. Zareena Begum in the year 1992. Out of the said wedlock two sons and one daughter (respondent) have born. The age of the elder son is 19 years who is undergoing Electric engineer course and the age of 2nd sons is 13 years who is reading in 8th class. The mother of the respondent during the subsistence of marriage with the petitioner had eloped with a person to Leh. Somehow or other the petitioner brought her back. There after she developed illicit relation with one Balbir Kumar Sharma during the subsistence of marriage with the petitioner. She pressurized the petitioner to divorce her so that she could solemnize marriage with said Balbir Kumar. In these circumstances the petitioner had no option but to divorce her. Immediately after divorce the other the respondent has changed her religion and embraced Hindu religion. She has changed her name from Zareena Begum to Meenakshi Sharma. She has married with said Balbir Kumar Sharma in accordance with Hindu rites and custom. It is further stated that after converting to Hindu religion and solemnizing the marriage with Balbir Kumar Sharma, Smt. Meenakshi Sharma pressuring the petitioner to hand over the custody of the respondent to her. That petitioner had admitted respondent in a reputed private school namely Anuradha Public School Bantalab Jammu. She was studying in 10th class in the said school. The respondent was being looked after by her father (petitioner) her brothers and even the wife of the petitioner. Unfortunately Smt. Meenakshi Sharma persuaded the respondent to leave the house of the petitioner. The respondent had gone to the School and from where she has gone to her mother and is living with her. It is further contended that at the instance of Smt. Meenakshi Sharma, the respondent has filed the petition u/s. 488 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (2nd Addl. Munsiff) Jammu. The respondent had gone to the School and from where she has gone to her mother and is living with her. It is further contended that at the instance of Smt. Meenakshi Sharma, the respondent has filed the petition u/s. 488 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (2nd Addl. Munsiff) Jammu. The petitioner has filed the reply to the main petition as well as the application for interim relief. The petitioner has pleaded in the objections that the respondent is living with her mother and who has changed her religion i.e. Hinduism. It is, therefore, been pleaded that her residence with her mother is against principle of Muslim personal law and consequently she was/is not entitled to any maintenance. It is further contended that the learned Magistrate vide order dated 14.12.2012 has allowed the application for interim relief and grant interim maintenance of Rs. 2500/- per month. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner also sought decision/Fatwa from Mufti-E-Azam, Dar-ul-Aloom Devband. Mufti-e-Azam has given the decision that in case after conversion to another religion by the mother and the daughter is living with her, then the mother herself is responsible for maintaining the daughter. The aforesaid order passed by the learned Magistrate was challenged in a revision petition before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu and the learned Sessions Judge vide its judgment/order dated 21.05.2013 has dismissed the revision petition. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved of the orders passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, therefore, he seeks quashment of both the orders on the following grounds: "(a) That the judgment and order impugned are contrary to the facts of the case and law on the point. The same deserves to be quashed. The petitioner has specifically pleaded in the objections filed by him before the learned Magistrate that the respondent was residing with her mother who has changed the religion i.e. Hinduism. In these circumstances Muslim Personal Law read with Section 488 Cr.P.C. the petitioner was not under obligation to maintain the respondent. However, this point has not been considered and discussed by the learned Magistrate. In the revision petition, the petitioner specifically raised the aforesaid point but the learned Principal Sessions Judge Jammu has not considered and decided the said point. In these circumstances Muslim Personal Law read with Section 488 Cr.P.C. the petitioner was not under obligation to maintain the respondent. However, this point has not been considered and discussed by the learned Magistrate. In the revision petition, the petitioner specifically raised the aforesaid point but the learned Principal Sessions Judge Jammu has not considered and decided the said point. The learned Magistrate and the revisional Court, therefore, have not exercised the jurisdiction vested to them under law. The judgment and orders impugned deserves to be quashed on this ground alone. (b) That as submitted above after divorce, the mother of the respondent has changed the religion and name as Meenakshi Sharma. She has married with Balbir Kumar Sharma. She has renounced Muslim religion and adopted Hindu religion. She has solemnized 2nd marriage with Balbir Kumar Sharma as per Hindu rites and custom. The respondent has left the house of the petitioner and started living with her mother, who is now a Hindu. In these circumstances she has rendered herself dis-entitled from claiming maintenance from the petitioner. This point has specifically been raised, but the same has not been considered by the learned Magistrate as well as the revisional Court. (c) That the petitioner was maintaining the respondent properly and taking care of by all the family members, but unfortunately, she left the house of the petitioner at the instance of her mother, without any justifiable excuse. In these circumstance, it cannot be said that the petitioner has neglected to maintain his daughter/respondent. This aspect of the case has also not been considered by the both the Courts below, as such, the orders impugned are liable to be quashed. (d) That the petitioner has specifically pleaded in the objections that he was ready to maintain the respondent provided she would reside with him. He also expressed the fear that the religion, faith and integrity of his daughter (respondent) was not safe. This aspect of the case has also not been considered by the Courts below. (e) That the finding of the learned Principal Sessions Judge that the petitioner has intentionally and deliberately failed to maintain the respondent is incorrect. On the other hand, the petitioner pleaded that she was ready to maintain the respondent provided she would leave the company of her mother who has changed the religion and live with him. (e) That the finding of the learned Principal Sessions Judge that the petitioner has intentionally and deliberately failed to maintain the respondent is incorrect. On the other hand, the petitioner pleaded that she was ready to maintain the respondent provided she would leave the company of her mother who has changed the religion and live with him. The revisional Court, therefore, has not appreciated the stand taken by the petitioner in right perspective. The judgment and order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu deserves to be quashed on this ground as well. (f) That on the other hand a bare perusal of the petition for maintenance filed by the respondent would show that she has left the house of the petitioner and the society of other family members without any lawful excuse. This aspect of the case was specifically raised but not considered by the learned Magistrate and the revisional Court. On this ground also the both the orders impugned are liable to be set aside. (g) That otherwise also Smt. Meenakshi Sharma has no right of the custody of the respondent after divorce and marriage with stranger that too of a different religion. The respondent is living with Smt. Meenakshi Sharma of her own free will. In these circumstances the petitioner is not entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner. This aspect of the case has also not been considered by the Courts below. (h) That it is settled principle of law that father is entitled to decline to maintain his child if he/she had refused to live with him without reasonable cause. The respondent has attained puberty. She will complete the age of 18 years in November, 2013. After attaining the age of puberty she has exercised her option to live with Smt. Meenakshi Devi who has renounced Muslim religion. On this ground also the respondent is not entitled to claim maintenance. This aspect of the case has also not been considered by the Courts below. (i) That at present the family of the petitioner is consisting of five members. He has also solemnized marriage. Out of the wedlock one daughter has born. The two sons of the petitioner are undergoing studies in private college/school. The petitioner has also taken loan from the J&K Bank for purchase of Laptop/computer. He is paying Rs. 24900/- per month to liquidate the loan. He has also solemnized marriage. Out of the wedlock one daughter has born. The two sons of the petitioner are undergoing studies in private college/school. The petitioner has also taken loan from the J&K Bank for purchase of Laptop/computer. He is paying Rs. 24900/- per month to liquidate the loan. From his salary an amount of Rs. 6000/- is being deducted on account of GPF/advance. He is paying an amount of Rs. 1400/- per month on account of LIC, Rs. 1500/- per month as tuition fee of his son, Rs. 1700/- per month as school fee for both of his sons, Rs. 2000/- per month as transport charges of his sons and Rs. 1000/- each per month as expenses of books and pocket money of his sons. Thus for the aforesaid counts he is incurring Rs. 18000/- per month. The aforesaid expenses are a part from the Mess and kitchen expenses. On this account he is incurring Rs. 7000/- to 8000/- per month. The petitioner and his family members are living with hand to mouth. All these facts have not been considered by the Courts below, as such the orders impugned are liable to be quashed." 4. In response to the petition, learned counsel for the respondent has filed MP No. 1/2017 seeking vacation of order dated 10.07.2013 whereby the operation of judgment/order dated 21.05.2013 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge Jammu was stayed. It is stated in the application that respondent is the daughter of the petitioner and this fact was admitted by the petitioner in the present petition and hence as per the mandate of Section 488 CrPC, the petitioner is entitled to maintain the respondent being the father of the respondent. The petitioner has concealed the material facts from this Court that the mother of the respondent had renounced Muslim religion and embraced Hinduism is totally false whereas the fact is that the mother of the respondent has never renounced Muslim religion and she is still practicing Islam and on this count alone the interim order is required to be vacated. The petitioner has concealed the material facts from this Court that the mother of the respondent had renounced Muslim religion and embraced Hinduism is totally false whereas the fact is that the mother of the respondent has never renounced Muslim religion and she is still practicing Islam and on this count alone the interim order is required to be vacated. It is further stated that the order under challenge is an interim order and no final verdict has come out from the trial has come out from the trial court and the factual position pleaded in the present petition can only be proved after leading the evidence hence the present petition is mere an eyewash which cannot be benefited for the petitioner at this stage. It is further contended that as per the mandate of Section 488 Cr.P.C., a father is under an obligation to maintain her daughter unless prove contrary hence the present petition is nothing and no grave illegality was committed by the learned trial Court as well as the revisional Court hence the interim order is required to be vacated so that the future career of the respondent may not be ruined and she is presently pursuing her studies and is in need of money for her studies as well as for her survival. The petitioner has raised the disputed question of fact in the present petition which cannot be looked into by the High Court by dealing with the petition under Section 561-A CrPC. Hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed and the directions are required to be issued to the petitioner to pay the arrears as well as monthly maintenance to the respondent being the father of the respondent. It is further stated that the present petition is not come under the ambit of the guidelines as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case hence the proceeding initiated against the petitioner u/s. 488 Cr.P.C. is not the abuse the process of law nor is effected by an illegality under law hence directions are required to be issued to the petitioner to pay the arrears as well as monthly maintenance to the respondent being the father of the respondent. The respondent is presently living in a rented accommodation for which the respondent has to pay the rent and she is in dire need of money for her survival as well as for her studies and the petitioner being a father is under obligation to maintain the respondent and as per the law the respondent is entitled to seek maintenance from the petitioner being her daughter and the mandate of Section 488 Cr.P.C. has also given the right to the respondent seeking maintenance from the father i.e. petitioner herein. It is further stated that the father of the petitioner is a Govt. employee and is taking a handsome salary hence is under the obligation to maintain the respondent otherwise the respondent is entitled to the half of the share of the property as well as the salary because the petitioner has also solemnized another marriage and the respondent due to the hostile attitude of the petitioner and 2nd wife which force the respondent to live in a rental accommodation because the respondent is not feeling safe in the hands of the petitioner and his 2nd wife as both of them wants to eliminate the respondent so that whole of the property be grabbed by 2nd wife of the petitioner. The order dated 10.07.2013 affecting harshly against the respondent and due to the said order the proceeding before the trial Court was also stalled hence directions are required to be issued to the petitioner to pay the arrears as well as monthly maintenance to the respondent being the father of the respondent and also direct the trial Court to decide the matter expeditiously as early as possible. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record file. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his petition, has relied upon the judgments of this Court in case titled Mala Sidiq v. Dilshada Banoo, reported in 2003(3) JKJ (HC), 184 and in case titled Bachan Lal Kalgotra v. State of J&K reported in 2016 (2) JKJ (HC) 652. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported both the orders and has argued that there is concurrent finding of two Courts below, which cannot be set aside in a petition u/s. 561-A Cr.P.C. That grounds taken are pertaining to facts, which are yet to established below court below during trial. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported both the orders and has argued that there is concurrent finding of two Courts below, which cannot be set aside in a petition u/s. 561-A Cr.P.C. That grounds taken are pertaining to facts, which are yet to established below court below during trial. 8. I have considered rival contentions and law on the subject. From the perusal of orders of the courts below, it is evident that respondent being minor daughter filed a petition u/s. 488 Cr.P.C., before court of JMIC, 2nd Additional Munsiff Jammu; alongwith main petition an application of interim maintenance was also filed; petitioner herein appeared and filed objections; court below on 14.12.2012 granted interim maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- pm; petitioner challenged this order in revision before Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, who on 21.05.2013 dismissed that petition on the ground that father has categorically admitted that he does not want to maintain his daughter-respondent herein. 9. S-488 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- "{Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain. (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or. (c) His legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or. (d) His father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding two thousand rupees in the whole, as such magistrate thinks fit and to pay the same to such person as the magistrate may from time to time direct. Provided that the magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowances, until she attains her majority, if the magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means." 10. Bare perusal of this section, it is evident that father has legal duty to maintain his minor legitimate or illegitimate child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself. Bare perusal of this section, it is evident that father has legal duty to maintain his minor legitimate or illegitimate child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself. Section 488 Cr.P.C. is a social legislation, strict law of pleading are not applicable. Procedure is of summary nature; purpose of interim relief is that petitioner may survive up to final adjudication of petition U/s. 488 Cr.P.C., which takes long time to finalize. Maintenance is right which accrues to children against father the minutes former gets after marriage. It is not only a moral obligation but also a legal duty of father to maintain his children. The primary object for granting interim maintenance is for ensuring that wife and children should not be left beggared. The remedy provided U/s. 488 Cr.P.C. is a summary remedy for securing reasonable sum by way of interim maintenance. 11. In the present case, petitioner herein has admitted that respondent is his daughter; but taken stand that as her mother has converted to different religion, so she is not entitled to get maintenance. This argument is not tenable at this stage, because it is fact which is yet to be established during trial. Further, even if it is considered that wife has converted religion; this will not debar the children to claim their independent legal right which has been vested to them by way statutory provision of law. 12. All other points taken in this petition are subject to judicial adjudication, which stage has not yet not come because parties are yet to produce their evidence. 13. The law cited by petitioner is not applicable in present set of circumstances. In Mala Sidiq v. Dilshada Banoo, reported in 2003(3) JKJ (HC) 184, it was admitted fact that when application was filed applicant-daughter was major; but in present case it is not so; because when petition was filed applicant was minor which fact has not been denied by petitioner herein. In case titled Bachan Lal Kalgotra v. State of J&K reported in 2016 (2) JKJ (HC) 652 the facts of case was entirely different and a general challenge has been made for quashing the word minor in section 488 Cr.P.C. by filing writ petition. 14. This court while exercising the power under section 561-A Cr.P.C., does not function as court of trial, appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly, careful and with great caution. 14. This court while exercising the power under section 561-A Cr.P.C., does not function as court of trial, appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly, careful and with great caution. These powers cannot be used to stifle the legitimate proceeding. This is discretionary power vested in High Court to do substantial justice. High Court cannot examine the evidence as to whether proceeding or order passed by court below was right or wrong. There is concurrent finding of two courts below that petitioner has neglected her daughter. 15. In view of above discussion, this petition is dismissed. Interim stay, if any, is vacated.