The main legal point established in the judgment is the maintainability of a maintenance petition filed by a petitioner for herself and on behalf of her minor brother, and the exercise of suo motu power by the revisional Judge to grant maintenance in favor of the minor brother.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., to allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai in Crl.R.P.No.15 of 2022 against M.C.No.26 of 2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.)

1. This petition has been filed to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai in Crl.R.P.No.15 of 2022, dated 07.02.2023 against M.C.No.26 of 2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, dated 12.10.2021.

2. The revision petitioner is the father of the respondent. The respondent and her minor brother filed M.C.No.26 of 2019 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, claiming maintenance of Rs.25,000/- under 125 Cr.P.C.

3.1. The petitioner is working as a driver in TNSTC. He married the mother of the respondents namely, Pandiyammal on 08.06.1997. Out of the wedlock, the respondent and her brother Prasanna were born. Thereafter, due to difference of opinion, the mother of the respondent filed HMOP.No.369 of 2012 under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, before the learned Sub Judge, Camp at Usilampatti, seeking divorce on the basis of mutual consent and the same was allowed on 28.02.2013. The said Pandiyammal and the petitioner got separated. Thereafter, the petitioner married another woman. The said Pandiyammal is unable to maintain herself and her children namely, the respondent and her brother. Hence, the respondent and her minor brother filed M.C.No.26 of 2019 before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, seeking maintenance on the ground that the petitioner is working as a driver in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- as salary. He owns house at Nagamalaipudukottai, Madurai and has lands at Vikkiramangalam which is fetching Rs.20,000/- as income. The respondent's brother Prassanna is studying. Because of insufficiency of fund, she is unable to meet his educational expenditure and the other expenses. In the said maintenance petition, the minor Prasanna was represented by his sister namely, the respondent.

3.2. Even after serving of notice, the petitioner has not appeared before the learned trial Judge. But, the learned trial Judge has dismissed the maintenance petition filed by the respondent and his brother on the ground that the brother of the respondent is a minor and maintenance petition filed for herself and on behalf of her minor brother claiming maintenance is not maintainable for the reason that she is not a natural guardian and next friend of her minor brother.

3.3. Aggrieved over the same, the respondent filed a Revision Petition in Cr.R.P.No.15 of 2022 before the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. The learned Sessions Judge has allowed the same on the ground that though the respondent cannot seek relief through the maintenance petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the trial Court is the authority to grant maintenance to the respondent under Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, until she gets married and further stated that though the brother of the respondent has attained majority during the pendency of the Crl.R.P.No.15 of 2022, he is entitled for the maintenance from the date of filing of the maintenance case till the age of his majority by granting maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per month to the respondent and Rs.5,000/- per month to her brother. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed this Revision.

4. This Court considered the rival submission made on either side and perused the materials available on records and the impugned judgment and the precedents relied upon by them.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of mutual divorce, the mother of the respondent has received a sum of Rs. 5,50,00