The revision petitioner, namely, Attaya Sellammal is the respondent in M.C.No.13 of 2007 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal. The respondent/ minor Kavitha is the granddaughter of the revision petitioner.

2. In the year 2007, the present respondent minor Kavitha filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in which, she claimed Rs.3,000/- as maintenance from the revision petitioner. After taking cognizance, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal, on 26.08.2009, dismissed the claim made by the respondent by mentioning that the petition filed by the respondent is not maintainable.

3. Against which, the respondent filed Criminal Revision Petition before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal in Crl.R.P.No.12 of 2010. In the said revision, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal passed an order, in which, the learned Judge set aside the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and ordered the revision petitioner to pay Rs.1,000/- as maintenance to the respondent. Aggrieved over the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, the petitioner approached this Court for setting aside the same.

4. Now, on going through the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, it appears that the learned Judge came to the conclusion that even though the petitioner being the grandmother of the respondent, the said relationship can be construed as mother and child relationship, whereby the respondent being the child can claim maintenance against the grandmother, who is in possession and enjoyment of the property, which belongs to the respondent.

5. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner vehemently contended that the provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. did not raise any obligation to the child for asking maintenance from the grandmother. Even though the property which was given by the father of the child is in the custody of the petitioner, she is having only a life estate in the said property. Further, from the said property, no income was derived by the petitioner. So, the direction to give maintenance is against the law. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing the Revision.

6. In this case, before discussing the merits and demerits of the revision, it should be necessary to consider the circumstances arised in and around the family of the minor child. The minor Kavitha is residing in Kollihills. Now, she is in the maternal grandmother's house. The father of the minor Kavitha, Kuttiyandi Thangaraj was died 12 years back from the date of filing of the maintenance application. Subsequent to that, the mother of the minor Ayammal ran away from the maternal home and married one Rajamanickam. In the said circumstances, the minor child is with the grandmother and she studied 9th standard in her village.

7. As of now, the property belongs to the minor child was enjoyed by the petitioner [Attaya Sellammal], through which she earned Rs.1,00,000/- per month as income. Further, she attempted to alienate the property for which the minor child filed a suit in O.S.No.953 of 2006 before the District Munsif Court, Namakkal and got an order of interim injunction. Even after getting the injunction order she refused to maintain the minor.

8. Now, on going through the judgments rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, both of them have concluded that there is no provision available for a minor child to claim maintenance from the grandmother, by way of filing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Principal Sessions Judge specifically came to the conclusion that only because of the reason that the property of the minor child is in the custody of the grandmother, the minor child is eligible for getting maintenance. In the said situation, Section 125 Cr.P.C. speaks as follows :

“125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents, (1) If any person having sufficient