JUDGMENT :

Archana Puri, J.

1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by learned trial Court, whereby, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The essential facts, as culled out from paper-book, are as follows:-

3. That, respondent No1. - Aditya Vashishth (who is petitioner before the trial Court) had filed a suit under Section 3 (b), 20 and 28 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, for maintenance, educational and marriage expenses and booking expenses for marriage expenses, medical expenses, read with Section 151 CPC.

4. Therein, primarily, it was asserted about petitioner-Anil Kumar Sharma not getting along with mother of respondent No.1, ever since the birth of the respondent No.1 and that the petitioner abandoned his wife and also two children, including respondent No.1. Both, the petitioner and mother of respondent No.1, are litigating between themselves for the last 29-30 years. Also, it is asserted therein, that now respondent No.1 is of 31 years of age, but still unemployed. Since, he has attained the marriageable age, therefore, he is entitled for claiming marriage expenses from petitioner-Anil Kumar, who is a man of resources.

5. The petitioner, upon making appearance, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, for rejection of suit, thereby, disputing about the suit to have been filed without cause of action and as such, liable to be dismissed. The respondent disputed about the maintainability of the suit under Section 3(b), 20 and 28 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. Moreover, the petitioner is aged around 31 years and therefore, there exists no provision under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, for maintenance of major male child. In the given circumstances and in the light of the same, while making reference to the various Sections of the ibid Act, it was asserted that the marriage expenses are to be paid only, in case of unmarried daughter, besides other heads of expenses. However, respondent No.1 being a major son, who is about 31 years of age, as such, cannot claim any right, with regard to expenses of the marriage.

6. After seeking reply and hearing counsel for the parties, the aforesaid application was dismissed.

7. Being aggrieved, petitioner Anil Kumar has filed the present revision petition.

8. Heard.

9. Throughout the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner assiduously submitted that the benefit of maintenance as well as the entitlement for marriage expenses, in any case, cannot be extended to respondent No.1, who had since attained majority as his date of birth is 18.08.1990. Although, a petition for seeking marriage expenses of an unmarried daughter, who has since attained majority is maintainable, but it can nevertheless, be extended to respondent No.1, who has since attained majority and therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order be set aside.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for contesting-respondent No.1 emphatically made reference to the contents of the reply to the application, wherein, it has been asserted in paragraph No.2, as herein given:-

'In fact, Section 20 (2) of the Act has already been read down by the several High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and it was held that father is liable to bear education and other expenses of even major son. Even judicial notice also can be taken that it is a custom to get marry son and daughter. It is duty of parents to get them settled. So, when old prevalent customs matters are not taken care of in present Act of 1956, then respondent/petitioner is entitled to invoke customary rights under the Act of 1956. In fact, section 3 (b) & (c) & section 20 (2) Act of 1956 are contra to customary rights & arbitrary violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India, hence same may be read down & be declared that sons are equality entitled to be taken care of even after majority is attai