O R D E R

This revision has been preferred challenging the order 01.04.2022 passed in un-numbered M.C of 2022 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Salem.

2.The revision petitioner is the son and the respondent is the father.

3. The revision petitioner/son filed a maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C before the Family Court, Salem, against the respondent/father seeking interim maintenance. The maintainability petition was heard by the learned Family Judge in the Open Court on 22.03.2022. Thereafter, the said petition was rejected questioning the maintainability of the petition along with other defects to be rectified. Challenging the said rejection order, the petitioner has filed the present revision case.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the age of the petitioner is twenty years at the time of filing the maintenance case, he claimed that, since his father and mother got divorced at the age of two years and his custody was handed over to the mother of the petitioner. Thereafter, both the parents of the petitioner got re-married and are living with their respective families. The petitioner was brought up by his maternal grandfather all along from his childhood till filing of the petition. Due to old age and some ailments, the maternal grandfather is now not in a position to maintain himself and also the petitioner. As a dutiful father, legally as well as morally, the respondent is responsible to maintain his son. The petitioner is now studying B.Tech third year and therefore, he has filed the petition seeking a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month towards his educational expenses and living expenses and also seeking a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month as interim maintenance. However, the learned Judge, Family Court, failed to consider the decisions referred to by the revision petitioner and rejected the petition at the threshold itself.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that, even the major son and daughter, who are unable to maintain their life and also the children, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury are unable to maintain themselves and hence, they are entitled to get maintenance from their parents. The petitioner is a student and he is not a earning person, therefore, till he settle in his life by securing any job the respondent is liable to maintain the petitioner.

6. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in T.Vimala & others vs.S.Ramakrishnan reported in [2016 SCC Online Mad 12324] and the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Urvshi Aggawal & Others vs Inder Paul Aggarwal reported in [2021 SCC Online Del 4641] and the decision of this Court in Selvaraj vs Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited represented through its Project Director reported in [2021 SCC Online Mad 2514].

7. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Section

125 Cr.P.C clearly shows that minor son till attaining his majority is entitled to get maintenance. He further submitted that in the case on hand, though the parents of the petitioner got divorced even at the age of two years of the petitioner, he never filed any case seeking maintenance before attaining majority. Further, at the time of divorce, the custody of the petitioner was given to his mother. However, even the mother has not filed any case for maintenance, or the maternal grandfather, who looked after the petitioner, has also not filed any case for maintenance. Even the petitioner has not filed any case seeking maintenance through their guardian or next friend, till he attained majority. However, after attaining majority, the petitioner has filed a suit for partition against his father and also filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C seeking maintenance. The learned Family Court Judge has rightly rejected the petition, since the petitioner attained majority and the scope of Section 125 Cr.P.C cannot be extended to the major son, who al