IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN th ON THE 15 OF APRIL, 2024 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2011 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

PRADEEP CHOUDHARY S/O LATE SUNDER LAL CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVT. EMPLOYEE R/O SAAPNA COLONY, SOHAGPUR, P.S. BETUL, DISTT. BETUL, MADHYA PRADESH.

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI ARPAN SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. SMT. MALTI W/O SHRI PRADEEP CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOT KNOWN R/O POST RODHA, P.S BETUL BAZAR, TAH. AND DISTT. BETUL, MADHYA PRADESH.

2. MASTER KUMUD S/O SHRI PRADEEP CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/O POST RODHA, P.S BETUL BAZAR, TAH. AND DISTT.

BETUL, MADHYA PRADESH.

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR NAVERIYA - ADVOCATE)

This revision coming on for admission, this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

The present revision has been filed challenging the order dated

08.04.2023 passed by the Family Court while deciding application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The Family Court had initially in the year 2008 awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs.1,200/- per month which was later on enhanced to Rs.2,300/- per Signature Not Verified month in the year 2014 and again in the year 2019, the Family Court had passed an order on 09.11.2019 whereby the monthly maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs.3,000/- to the wife (now divorced) and the son.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has limited the attack to the impugned order dated 08.04.2023 to the aspect that since the son has attained majority on 02.06.2021, hence, the Family Court by order dated 08.04.2023 has erred in continuing the payment of maintenance to the major son for a further period of three years to the tune of Rs.4,000/- per month.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 125 (1) (b) of the Cr.P.C., the Court can only pass an order to maintain minor children and order of maintenance for major child can only be passed in case the child is suffering from any physical or mental abnormality and is unable to maintain himself on account of such abnormality.

5. By taking this Court through the order passed by the Family Court, it is submitted that the Family Court has continued award of maintenance to the major son only on the ground that he is preparing for entrance examination for medical education and is preparing for NEET. Thus, looking to the situation that the son is still not having capacity to maintain himself, for the purpose of continuing education of the son, the Family Court has ordered to continue payment of maintenance to son for a period of three years despite having attained majority.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abhilasha Vs. Prakash reported in AIR 2020 SC 4355 and has contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the right of major unmarried daughter to continue to receive maintenance and it has been held that as a proposition of law, an unmarried Hindu daughter can claim Signature Not Verified maintenance from her father till she is married only under Section 20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Thus, by placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment, it is contended that the Family Court could not have continued payment of maintenance to major son by exercising powers under Section 125/127 of Cr.P.C.

7. Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the son has been admitted in a Govt. Medical College and he is undergoing education of MBBS in a Govt. Medical College, Madhya Pradesh. This fact has not been controverted during arguments by learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. Thus, it is argued that the son is in need of maintenance amount so that he can complete the First Degree Course after School Education. It is further contended that this is necessary so that the son can become self supporting and can live with dignity and for this purpose, the order of the Family Court is justified.

9. Upon hearing