A minor child's right to maintenance from his father is independent and absolute and cannot be deprived by any agreement between the parents.

1. - Anil Kumar Joshi, petitioner, was married to Dr. Nalini, the mother of Lalit Vivek, respondent, on 28.10.74, The wedlock gave two children to them, namely a daughter Nivedita and a son Lalit Vivek, the present respondent. Though their marriage had been solemnised as back as on 28.10.74, yet it could not be successful and they started living separately with effect from 2.7.1989. Finally they decided to dissolve the marriage and a joint petition under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act of 1955), was filed on 29.10.93. In para No. 7 of the joint divorce petition the following averments were made: HINDI MATTER 361410 A

2. In para No. 9 of the said petition the following averments were further made: HINDI MATTER B

3. Anyway, a consent decree dissolving their marriage by divorce was passed on 4.4.94. It appears that Kum. Nivedita and Lalit Vivek, respondent continued to reside and to be maintained by their mother Dr.Nalini. Kum. Nivedita was getting education in Sofia Sr. Hr. Secondary School, Ajmer and Lalit Vijay, respondent was getting education in St. Anselam Sr. Hr. Secondary School, Ajmer. Undisputedly, both the children were being maintained by their mother Dr. Nalini. It is in evidence that after having obtained the consent decree for divorce, the petitioner married again and he is reportedly blessed with a son from his second wife.

4. In the above back-drop the two minor children, Kum. Nivedita, aged about 17 years at that time and Lalit Vivek, the present respondent, aged about 11 years at the relevant time, filed an application under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code in the Family Court, Ajmer for grant of maintenance to them from the petitioner. The learned Judge, Family Court, vide his order dated 22.3.96 rejected the claim of Kum. Nivedita on the ground that during the pendency of the application she had become major. The learned Judge, however, accepted the application of Lalit Vivek, respondent, and directed the petitioner to pay a monthly amount of Rs. 500/- to the said minor towards his maintenance. Aggrieved by such order of the learned Judge, Family Court, the petitioner has filed this revision application under section 19(4) of the Family Court Act read with section 397 Cr. P.C.

5. This Court vide its order dated 2.8.96 entertained the petition for hearing on the condition that the petitioner would file an undertaking to the effect that he would regularly pay the maintenance allowance to the respondent till disposal of the petition. The petitioner duly filed the required undertaking on 12.8.96. The office shall examine if the undertaking has been honoured by the petitioner and shall make a report to the Bench.

6. Mr. S.K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, advanced oral and also submitted written arguments before me. The main contention of the learned counsel was that since as per terms and conditions of the joint divorce petition whereupon the consent decree for divorce was passed on 4.4.94. Dr. Nalini, who was the mother of the respondent, had undertaken to maintain the respondent, the petitioner was under no legal obligation to maintain his minor son. It was submitted that the consent decree had been passed by a Civil Court and as the present proceedings were initiated under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure were criminal in character, the criminal court is bound by the decree, passed by the civil court. Mr. Gupta has further submitted that since Dr. Nalini had been earning sufficient income since long and was capable of maintaining the respondent, the petitioner alone is not duty bound to maintain the respondent. He has further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be concluded that the petitioner had neglected or refused to maintain the respondent. In the alternative, it has also been suggested that the petitioner would like to maintain the respondent provided he resides and lives with him.

7. In his written arguments Mr. Gup