Only individuals defined as 'children' under 18 years can claim maintenance, and entitlement ceases upon reaching majority, as outlined in the PWDV Act.

ORDER :

1. The respondent in M.C. No.17/2013 has filed this revision petition invoking the provisions of Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are his wife and children. In M.C. No.17/2013 which was filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act), respondent Nos.1 to 3 sought various reliefs including maintenance. The trial court allowed the petition. Operative part of the order reads as follows:-

“(1) Respondent is restrained to commit physical abuse, verbal abuse, mental abuse, emotional abuse and threats against the petitioners.

(2) He shall not alienate or encumber the shared household 'Narayaneeyam' located in the property extending 30 cents comprised in Survey No.93/21/2 B at Kayamkulam Village.

(3) He shall not enter in the place of employment of 1^st petitioner or attempt to communicate with her in any form, whatsoever including personal, oral or written or electronic or telephonic contact.

(4) Respondent is directed to pay Rs.5000/- (Five thousand)towards monthly rent to the 1st petitioner.

(5) Respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.4000/- (Four thousand) each to children Akash P. Bharath, Aged 12/13 and Adharsh P.Bharath, Aged 8/13.

1st petitioner is allowed to receive maintenance on behalf of children.

SHO Kayamkulam shall assist 1st petitioner to implement the order.”

3. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 2 9 of the Act. The appellate court confirmed the order granting relief Nos.1, 3 and 5, modified relief No.2 and set aside relief No.4. The appellate court observed in regard to the monthly maintenance allowed in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3, as follows:-

“The learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the appellant ceased to pay the amount to respondents 2 and 3 on account of majority. Admittedly the order passed by the trial court is not restricting granting of maintenance till the attainment of majority. As the relief granted under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is in addition, there is no restriction in claiming maintenance after attainment of majority.”

Aggrieved by the said observation, concerning relief No.5, the petitioner filed this revision petition.

4. Despite receipt of notice, respondent Nos.1 to 3 did not choose to appear before this Court. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. It is noticed in the operative part of the order of the trial court itself that respondent No.2-the elder child, was aged 12 years and 3^rd respondent-younger child, was aged 8 years in2014.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2^nd respondent attained majority on 23.04.2018 and the 3^rd respondent on 17.05.2022. The learned counsel maintains that the provisions of the PWDV Act, Section 125 of the Code and Section 2 0(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, cannot be interpreted to the effect that a male child is entitled to claim maintenance even after attaining majority. Therefore, the view taken by the appellate court that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to get maintenance even beyond their age of majority is wrong.

7. ‘Child’ is defined in Section 2 (b) of the PWDV Act. It reads:

“(d) child means any person below the age of eighteen years and includes any adopted, step or foster child.”

8. Section 20 (1)(d) of the PWDV Act enables aggrieved persons to claim maintenance also for the children. Section20(1)(d) reads as follows:

“(d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Crimina