JUDGMENT : GITA GOPI, J. 1. The challenge is given by the petitioner to the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Talod on 27.01.2014 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 52 of 2009, whereby the applicant mother is ordered to pay maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- for each of the two applicants, who are minors. 2. Criminal Misc. Application No. 52 of 2009 was filed on 11.05.2009 by one Sureshpuri Mahadevpuri Goswami as a guardian and friend of minor son aged about 12 years and minor daughter aged about 8 years, against the mother, who is the present applicant, under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The cause title of the impugned order shows that opponent- present applicant, had not been represented by any Advocate. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Viral J. Dave for the petitioner submitted that actually the process of the Court was not served to the opponent-present applicant, and para-2 of the impugned judgment itself shows that notice, Exh.12, was issued, but some Goswami Bhupendragiri Balvangiri had taken the notice, who is not at all related to the present petitioner, and the right to file a reply came to be closed. 3.1 Advocate Mr. Dave submitted that the mother was not at all aware about the proceedings and had failed to understand as to why the father though being an Advocate, had not taken the custody of both the children and also failed to understand as to how Sureshpuri Mahadevpuri Goswami, without any order of any Court of being a guardian, had self appointed himself as a guardian of the minors, when the father was very much available for both the children. 3.2 Advocate Mr. Dave submitted that the father Amrutpuri Chanchalpuri Goswami is an advocate by profession. He is having a very active practice, which could also be verified and established from the proceeding, which is initiated by the Court at Talod, where the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Talod has passed an order dated 12.05.2022 below Exh.1, directing to file a criminal complaint against Amrutpuri Chanchalpuri Goswami, Shantaben Popatpuri Goswami and others. 3.3 Advocate Mr. He is having a very active practice, which could also be verified and established from the proceeding, which is initiated by the Court at Talod, where the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Talod has passed an order dated 12.05.2022 below Exh.1, directing to file a criminal complaint against Amrutpuri Chanchalpuri Goswami, Shantaben Popatpuri Goswami and others. 3.3 Advocate Mr. Dave has referred to the observation of the Magistrate, to submit that though the father Amrutpuri Chanchalpuri Goswami is very much alive and not mentally ill or has not lost his mental balance, and he is a famous Advocate of Mahesana District having a very good practice and a president of Bar Association, and though the children were in the custody of the father, had filed a false application. 3.4 Advocate Mr. Dave submitted that Sureshpuri Mahadevpuri Goswami has urged false facts before the Court, and though the father of both the minors is a successful lawyer, Sureshpuri Mahadevpuri Goswami had tried to prove the father as mentally unstable before the Court and on that basis had made a prayer for maintenance from the mother. 3.5 Advocate Mr. Dave submitted that a notice was served to Bhansali Trust for verification of the alleged job of the opponent i.e. the present applicant, but the notice came up with endorsement that she had left the job and had given her resignation from the post of Supervisor in Anganbadi on 12.12.2008. 3.6 Advocate Mr. Dave submitted that the court concerned was required to inquire about the father of the minors, and if by way of judicial inquiry or by taking a judicial notice would have very well known that the father of both the minors was the practicing lawyer of that Court. Sureshpuri Mahadevpuri Goswami in connivance with the lawyer, the father of the minors, had placed a false case and has misguided the Court. Mr. Dave submitted that the Court has allowed the application on the ground that though mother may not be having a job, but that would prove her capacity to maintain the children; and further a judicial notice was taken about the property, which belonged to the brother and father of the opponent, which is a forefather’s property. 3.7 Advocate Mr. Mr. Dave submitted that the Court has allowed the application on the ground that though mother may not be having a job, but that would prove her capacity to maintain the children; and further a judicial notice was taken about the property, which belonged to the brother and father of the opponent, which is a forefather’s property. 3.7 Advocate Mr. Dave submitted that, the minors have now turned major, and son is now in the post of Talati and daughter is a nurse by profession, who is married and as per information, Mr. Dave stated that she is likely to join her husband at Australia. 4. Advocate Mr. P.B. Goswami, learned advocate for the minors submitted that the mother has eloped with some other person and was having a job as a Anganwadi Supervisor. Advocate Mr. Goswami stated that she was earning about Rs.6,500/- per month, and was also earning income of Rs.2,00/- per day by maintaining Kitchens and earning Rs.4,000/- from rent in her own house. The mother had completed P.T.C. course and was also earning from tuition and has a land bearing Survey No. 457 and 458 at Aritha village. 5. The contention was raised by Sureshpuri Mahadevpuri Goswami that the son was studying in standard 11 and the daughter in standard 9, and the father Amrutpuri Chanchalpuri Goswami is mentally ill and not doing any work and, therefore, maintenance amount was prayed for the minors from the mother. 5.1 It is very unfortunate to note that the father Amrutpuri Chanchalpuri Goswami being a lawyer and an officer of the Court had misguided the Court and though was having the custody of both his children, had misguided the Court by filing Criminal Misc. Application No. 52 of 2009, through Sureshpuri Mahadevpuri Goswami, who is said to be his cousin brother. It was not declared before the Judicial Magistrate, Talod that the father of the petitioner is practicing lawyer of that Court. 5.2 The application was moved with total suppression of the fact. The mother was not served personally and the proceedings were conducted in her absence, therefore she had no opportunity to inform the Court about the real state of affairs. Hence, she could not bring it to the notice of the Court that her husband is a practicing lawyer. 5.2 The application was moved with total suppression of the fact. The mother was not served personally and the proceedings were conducted in her absence, therefore she had no opportunity to inform the Court about the real state of affairs. Hence, she could not bring it to the notice of the Court that her husband is a practicing lawyer. 5.3 The learned Magistrate was required to inquire from Sureshpuri Mahadevpuri Goswami, who projected himself as a guardian and friend of the minors, as to how and under what authority he got the custody of both the minors. The Court ought to have asked for the order of competent Court showing his legal status of representing him as minors’ guardian and friend. The lawyer Amrutpuri Chanchalpuri Goswami has played fraud with the Court and misguided the Court. He has suppressed all the facts and by playing fraud has sought the order. 5.4 The learned Magistrate was required to inquire from the guardian about the financial capacity of the father and could have known through the applicant about the profession of the father. 6. In Rajnesh vs. Neha & Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 324 , it has been noted that it is the sacrosanct duty of the father to financially support the minor children. The capacity and capability of the mother would be irrelevant factor when it is the case of maintenance of minor children. Even if, as noted in Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Ors. (supra) and even if wife is earning some income, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. In the same way even if wife is earning some money, or is capable to maintain herself, that itself cannot be made good ground to provide maintenance for the children, when it has not come on record that the father is incapable to maintain his own minor children. 7. It has come on record that the father of both the children is a successful lawyer. He had also been President of the Bar and as the children were actually staying with father, this Court finds that order dated 27.01.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Talod in Criminal Misc. Application No. 52 of 2009 is required to be quashed and set aside, and, thus is quashed and set aside. 8. In the result, Criminal Revision Application No. 453 of 2018 is allowed. Application No. 52 of 2009 is required to be quashed and set aside, and, thus is quashed and set aside. 8. In the result, Criminal Revision Application No. 453 of 2018 is allowed. The connected Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. Order in Criminal Revision Application No. 562 of 2020 1. The stay, which came to be granted on 14.10.2020 by co-ordinate bench of this Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 562 of 2020 was on the ground of application by the son and daughter against the respondent no. 2, who is mother. 1.1 It was urged that the children of the petitioner - Amrutpuri Chanchalpuri Goswami, the Advocate, had moved an application for transfer of five criminal applications for execution of the maintenance to children from the Court of J.M.F.C., Talod to Family Court, Mahesana under section 407(c) of the Cr.P.C. and the coordinate bench vide order dated 18.03.2020 issued notice and the matter was listed on 08.09.2020. The ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph 7(b) was granted, and thus, a prayer was made that till the final disposal of the said application, the proceedings of Criminal Misc. Application No. 387 of 2016 pending before the Family Court, Mahesana be stayed, and thereafter on submission, the impugned order passed by the Family Court, Mahesana dated 10.08.2020 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 387 of 2016 was ordered to be stayed till the next date of hearing. 2. It is brought to the notice that Criminal Misc. Application No. 5583 of 2020, which was filed before this Court was urged to be withdrawn in view of the order dated 12.12.2018 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 453 of 2018, and the permission was granted, therefore, the petition stood disposed of as withdrawn and Criminal Misc. Application No. 1 of 2020 was found as not sustainable, hence, was also disposed of. 3. Since in Criminal Revision Application No. 453 of 2018, the order dated 27.01.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Talod in Criminal Misc. Application No. 52 of 2009 is quashed and set aside by the present order, all the petitions in connection with the said order would not survive, therefore, the cause of granting stay would not remain. 3. Since in Criminal Revision Application No. 453 of 2018, the order dated 27.01.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Talod in Criminal Misc. Application No. 52 of 2009 is quashed and set aside by the present order, all the petitions in connection with the said order would not survive, therefore, the cause of granting stay would not remain. Hence, taking into consideration the facts and the present circumstances, and in view of the order passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 453 of 2018, stay granted on 14.10.2020 in Criminal Revision Application No. 562 of 2020, staying the order dated 10.08.2020, is vacated. 4. Further order of adjournment is separately passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 562 of 2020.