P.N. Bakshi, J.- - (1.) THIS revision involves a very interesting question of law. Srimati Qaiser Jahan Begum is admittedly the wife of Rizwan Ullah Khan. After their marriage she performed her marital obligations at the residence of her husband in village Tlasanpur Luhari, Police Station Thana Bhawar, district Muzaifar-nagar. On 28-1-1977 she filed an application under section 125 Cr. P. C. in the court of the first class Magistrate Kairana praying for maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month from her husband Rizan Ullah Khan. She alleged that her husband was a gambler, a vagabond and liquor addict. When she asked him to give up these bad habits she was ill-treated and beaten and thereafter, while she was ill he left her at her father's place in village Hasanpur Luhari. A year prior to the filing of the petition she had also given birth to a daughter begotten of her husband. She alleged that her husband had failed to maintain her as well as her child. She had no means to make both ends meet. Hence she prayed for maintenance allowance of Rs. 200/- per month. The applicant denied his liability to pay maintenance. He denied that he was adicted to liquor, gambling or to have mixed in bad company. He also denied having ill-treated his wife or to have turned her out of his house. He pleaded that as the marriage of his brother-in-law was fixed on 22nd June 1976 his wife had voluntarily gone to her father's place, a few days in advance, to attend the marriage and she had carried all her ornaments with her. Since then in spite of his best efforts his wife has refused to come back and to live with him with the child. He stated specifically that he has always been willing to bring his wife home and he was still prepared to do so. As for his income he alleged that it was only Rs. 150/- per month. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate came to the conclusion on appraisement of the evidence on the record that Srimati Qaiser Jahan Begum has not been able to prove that her husband ill-treated her and left her at her father's place. She had also failed to prove that he had neglected or refused to maintain her. The trial court, therefore, did not grant any maintenance allowance to the wife. But the Magistrate directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 160,'- per month as maintenance for his daughter, aged about 1 1/2 years. Aggrieved thereby a revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar by Rizwan Ullah Khan. The Sessions Judge was of the opinion that since the husband was prepared to take back his wife and to maintain her as well as the child and since the wife had refused to live with her husband, there would be no justification in burdening the husband with the liability to pay the maintenance for the child. As to the question of the maintenance for child he was also of the opinion that, having regard to the income of the husband, the appropriate maintenance allowance would be Rs. 100/- per month for the child. In this view of the matter, the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar allowed the revision by the husband and set aside the order passed by the Magistrate directing payment of Rs. 150/- to Srimati Qaiser Jahan Begum as maintenance allowance for the child. Aggrieved, thereby Srimati Qaiser Jahan Begum has filed this revision. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also perused the impugned order. The question of law which arises for consideration in the instant case is whether the minor child in the custody of the mother would be entitled to maintenance allowance, in spite of the fact that the mother does not live with her husband and fails to discharge her marital obligations without sufficient cause. In other words, is the husband liable to maintain his minor child in the custody of his wife, whom he has neither neglected nor failed to maintain. Section 125 Cr. P. C. (new) runs as follows : "125 (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 minor 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 five hundred 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 allowance, 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............... THIS section clearly contemplates four different classes of persons who are to be maintained, namely, the wife, the minor child legitimate or illegitimate, the child physically or mentally abnormal and the or mother, who are unable to maintain themselves. The responsibility for maintaining each of these categories of person is not 1 inked with each other. It is an independent liability. There can be several sets of combinations in the above four classes (a) a mother may be living with her daughter having been rejected by her son, (b) An invalid father may be living with his brother, having been discarded by his son, (c) a wife may be living with her relations having been rejected by the husband and (d) a child may be living with the mother, who is her natural guardian. Several other situations may arise when there is a clash of ideas and interests in practical life. A pertinent question, therefore, would be in every case, whether the individual who has been entrusted with the liability of maintaining the four classes of persons, mentioned above has neglected or refused to maintain them and correspondingly, whether the person who are liable to be maintained are placed in such circumstances that they are unable to maintain themselves. In the instant case, where a wife deserts her husband without reasonable cause and refuses to go back to him, in spite of his willingness to maintain her, the point for consideration would be; whether the minor child in her custody should be awarded maintenance allowance ? Under section 125 (1) (b) referred to above, there can be no doubt that if the father neglects or refuses to maintain his minor child, unable to maintain himself, he would be liable to pay maintenance allowance up to an amount of Rs. 500/-under aforesaid section. The sins of the wife cannot be visited upon the child. If the wife chooses to remain away without just cause, the child in her custody is not to starve and die. She may not be entitled to maintenance allowance under Section 125(1) (a) Cr. P. C. but, at the same time, such deprivation would not take away the right of the minor child to be maintained under section 125(1) (b) Cr. P. C. In other words the minor child in the custody of her/his mother must be maintained, if she/he is unable to maintain herself/himself, as required by the aforesaid section. The word 'unable to maintain' itself used in this connection are not without meaning. Surely a female child aged about 1 1/2 years, as in the present case, cannot maintain herself and, therefore, she would in law be entitled to maintenance without any reservations. But it is significant to note that under section 125(1) Explanation (a) the word 'minor' has been defined. 'Minor' means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1879 is deemed not to have attained his majority. Under the Indian Majority Act, 1975 a person is deemed to be a minor till he had attained the age of 13 years. It is not uncommon to find a child aged about 14-15 years earning his livelihood by petty employments. In those circumstances, even though he may be a minor, yet since he is able to maintain himself, he would not be entitled to maintenance under section 125 (1) (b) Cr. P. C. Such being the position of the law, I have no doubt in my mind that a minor child in the custody of her mother, who lives separately away without justifiable reasons, would independently in his/her own right be entitled to receive maintenance allowance, if he/she is unable to maintain him/herself. In support of this view the following cases may be referred. In Mt. Bashiran and others v. Nathu (1), it has been held as follows : "The right of the children to claim maintenance from their father is independent of the mothers' right to maintenance and, consequently, it cannot be affected merely by reason of the fact that the mother has been divorced or that she is not of a virtuous character. The right is based on the paternity of the child. An offer of the father to maintain the child or the fact that the child is not left in his custody is not a valid ground for refusing maintenance." In Abnash Chandra Kanshi Ram v. Smt. Soshila Devi, (2), it has been held as under : "The position of a child who has not attained the age of discretion or who is not of its own free will or volition living away from the father is peculiar. If such a child is kept in custody by the mother and is prevented from returning to the father, it cannot be said that the child is at fault and that its conduct has disentitled it to maintenance. Even if a child prefers to live with the mother due to natural affection or attachment for her, that would not affect the liability of the father to maintain the child." In Nathu Ram v. Smt. Atar Kunwar (3), It has been held as follows : "The fact that the wife and the husband are living separately by mutual consent creates only a personal disability in the wife for receiving an allowance for herself under section 488 Cr. P, C. and it does not bar a claim made by her. on behalf of her children. The fact that the children are living with the mother, cannot deprive the children of their right of receiving a maintenance allowance under section 488 Cr. P. C. if they are otherwise entitled to it. The rejection of wife's claim for allowance in regard to herself cannot entail the rejection of the claim made by her on behalf of the children.'' In Balbir Singh and others v. Hardeep Singh (4), it has been held as under : "If the child is living with the mother who is its natural guardian, the father is bound to maintain it and it is not open to him to impose a condition that the child must live with him. Even in a case where the father is the natural guardian, but the child in the custody of the mother, father's obligation to maintain the child subsists and he cannot impose a condition requiring the child to come and live with him in case the child has not attained the age of discretion or is not living with the mother of its free will or volition. In such a case, in order to escape his liability to pay maintenance allowance, the father must obtain the custody of the child from the proper court, but till the custody is obtained, the child must be maintained wherever it is. Father's liability to maintain the child does not cease merely because the child has attained the age of discretion but is living with the mother on account of natural love and affection or attachment with her." In this very connection it may be mentioned in passing that since the parties involved are Muslims, therefore, under the Muslims law the female child on whose behalf maintenance is also claimed by Srimati Qaiser Jahan Begum would be entitled to remain under the guardianship of her mother till she attains puberty. Had the child been a boy, the Muslims mother would be entitled to his custody up to the age of 7 years. In these circumstances, it cannot be urged that the custody of the minor child by Smt. Qaiser Jahan Begum is an illegal custody and hence maintenance allowance should not be allowed. In Mohammad Yusuf Khan v. Mst. Zarina. (5) it has been held as follows . "Held further that under the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 488, a wife is not entitled to refuse an offer by the husband to allow her to live with him. The husband is permitted to take a position that he would maintain his wife on condition of living with him without any just ground she cannot claim separate maintenance, but the case of a child stands on a different footing, because considerations which would disentitle the mother to claim maintenance would not deprive the child of his right to ask and recover it under the provision of Sec. 488. In the present case the parents of the child were government by Muhammadan law under which the father is not entitled to demand custody of a child of less than seven years as a condition precedent for maintaining him. Even in cases where the father has a right to obtain custody of the child the wife can claim maintenance for the child so long as the child lives with her provided it is proved that there is neglect or refusal on the part of the father to maintain the child. The father is not released from his liability to maintain the child if the child prefers to live with the mother on account of love and affection or attachment for her." In my opinion, therefore, the Sessions Judge, has committed an illegality in the exercise of his jurisdiction in refusing maintenance allowance to the child. As regards the qunatum of maintenance Srimati Qaiser Jahan Begum has claimed a sum of Rs. 200/- for herself and minor child. The Sessions Judge was of the view that proper maintenance to be awarded for the child was Rs. 100/- per month, even though he did not allow the same. Having regard to the evidence on the record, I am also of the opinion that it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 100/- per month as maintenance allowance for the child. THIS revision application is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar dated 27-8-1977 is set aside. Rizwan Ullah Khan, the husband shall be liable to pay maintenance allowance to her minor child in the custody of her mother Srimati Qaiser Jahan Begum, at the rate of Rs. One Hundred (Rs. 100/-) per month. The liability to pay shall commence from the date of the application made by the mother viz. 28-1-1977.;