ORDER :

B.N. Karia, J.

1. When the matter was placed for admission, respondent No. 1 herself is present before the court and she identifies herself as Bhartiben Rakeshbhai Damir.

2. Rule returnable on 2nd December 2019. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No. 2-State. Respondent No. 1-Bhartiben Rakeshbhai Damir waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No. 1, as she being a practicing advocate.

3. The applicant has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2019 passed by learned Judge, Family Court No. 4, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2943 of 2002.

4. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and the respondent No. 1.

5. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that granting 25% of the net income of the applicant per month regularly is against the settled position of law and no justifiable reasons were recorded by the learned Judge in granting such amount of maintenance to the respondent No. 1. He has further submitted that son Dhruvesh had attained majority in the year 2015 and as per provisions of Section 125(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he is not entitled for maintenance from March 2015, however, learned Judge has awarded 25% of net salary of the applicant. It is further submitted that there is no provisions under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. to award 6% simple interest if amount of maintenance is not paid within a period 30 days, however, learned Judge has completely ignored the provisions and passed an order of simple interest at the rate of 6%. It is further submitted that the divorce decree was granted by the learned Judge on the ground of desertion on the very same day when the impugned order was passed. However, the same thing was not considered as the applicant has never deserted the respondent No. 1. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the applicant to grant interim relief as prayed by him in para 6(c).

6. Respondent No. 1 has vehemently opposed the prayer and argued that learned Judge has rightly considered the evidence on record, as the applicant is getting more than Rs. 2 lacs by salary per month. That, applicant is not paying maintenance regularly. She has relied upon the judgment passed by Bombay High Court in Civil Writ petition No. 2117 of 2012 and argued that however, attaining majority by the son, he is entitled to claim maintenance from his father. As there is huge arrears of maintenance and applicant is not paying amount of maintenance regularly to her, it is submitted that learned Judge, Family Court has committed no error in passing the order, and therefore, no interim relief can be granted as prayed for by the applicant.

7. Learned APP has requested to pass necessary order so far as interim relief is concerned.

8. Having perused the record and submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant, learned APP for the respondent-State as well as respondent No. 1, who herself is a practicing lawyer and the available record, it appears that in an application for interim maintenance, the applicant was directed to pay Rs. 12,000/- per month to the respondent No. 1 and Rs. 8,000/- per month to her son. As admitted by respondent No. 1, her son Dhruvesh has got majority in the month of March 2015. It also appears from the record that the petition for divorce preferred by the present applicant was allowed by the learned Judge, Family court on the very same day when the impugned order has been passed.

9. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Jayvardhan Sinh Chapotkat v. Ajayveer Chapotkat in Civil Writ Petition No. 2117 of 2012, has held in para 16 that:

"16. A major son may not be entitled for maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act. In the present case, the petitioner has made out a specific claim for educational expenses which can be availed by him after attaining the age of 18 years. The son/claimant would attain majority as far as age is concerned, however, it would not be the proper ag