IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4825 of 2024 SMT. HERMEET KAUR WADHWA AND OTHERS Versus SARAVJEET SINGH WADHWA Appearance:

Shri Prateek Maheshwari - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].

(Heard on: 10.02.2026)

(Delivered on: 17.02.2026)

ORDER Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

This criminal revision under section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with section 397 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 is preferred being aggrieved by order dated 18.10.2023 (Annexure-P/1) in MJCR No.188/2023 by the 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore whereby name of the petitioner no.2 and 3 / major children of the respondent have been deleted from the array of list of the petitioners in a proceeding filed for maintenance under section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that petitioner no.1 was married to respondent on 21.11.1998 at Ratlam (MP). Petitioner No.2 took birth on 12.12.1999 and petitioner no.3 was born on 22.11.2004 at Ratlam and presently both are residing with the petitioner no.1 at Indore separately from the respondent.

3. Application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 was preferred on

06.12.2023 claiming maintenance to the tune of Rs.50,000/- per month for petitioner no.1 alongwith Rs.10,000/- as accommodation expenses and Rs.25,000/- per month each for petitioner no.2 and 3 alongwith educational expenses and Rs.50,000/- as cost of proceedings.

4. Respondent filed application (Annexure-P/3) for deleting the name of petitioner no.2 and 3 on the ground that they are major. Petitioner no.2 has completed age of 23 years and has completed her law graduation and she is taking internship under Advocate Shri Prateek Maheshwari since 15.10.2022 along with her LLM. Petitioner no.3 is also major and not cooperating in the family business of running petrol pump deliberately. No one is suffering from any physical or mental disability.

5. Application was contested by petitioner no.2 and 3 and vide impugned order trial court allowed the application (Annexure-P/3) and deleted the name of the petitioner no.2 and 3 from the array of the list of petitioners from the main application.

6. Challenging the impugned order this revision petition is preferred on the ground that mere adulthood does not mean that they are maintaining themselves but they are still studying and does not have independent source of income of their own. Petitioner no.2 is grappling herself to establish financially and petitioner no.3 is still pursuing graduation. Trial court did not considered the reply of the respondent that he is ready to hand over the petrol pump in the name of Rituraj Petroleum if petitioner no.3 returned to Ratlam and lives with him which shows that petitioner no.3 is in need of maintenance.

7. The have relied upon the case of Rita Dutta Vs. Subhendu Dutta (2005) 6 SCC 619, Urvashi Aggarwal Vs. Inderpaul Aggarwal 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7495 and Jayvardhan Singh Chapokat Vs. Ajayveer Chapotkat SCC 2014 OnLine Bom. 465 and Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC

316.

8. Heard.

9. Counsel for the respondent/husband supported the impugned order.

10. The plain reading of section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 reveals:-

"That only minor children are entitled for maintenance under the Act except major children who are physically or mentally unable to maintain themselves."

11. The case of the revision petitioner no.2 and 3 does not fall under these categories. Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1956") obligates maintenance of unmarried daughter unable to maintain herself and section 23 and 24 of the Act concerns determination of maintenance and limitation of claims. Family Courts Act, 1984 particularly sections 7, 10, 18 and 19 outlines jurisdictions procedure and execution of orders. Thus, Family Courts exercises both civil and criminal jurisdictio