Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1760 (RAJ)

Laxmi Veerwal v. Laxmi Lal

2004-12-09

H.R.PANWAR

body2004
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC is directed against the Order dated 15.02.2003 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur (for short, “the Family Court” hereinafter) on an application under Section 127 CrPC, whereby the Family Court enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 500/-to Rs. 700/-in favour of petitioner No. 3 Ku. Ranjana D/o Laxmi Lal Veerwal; however, the maintenance awarded to petitioner No. 2 Ku. Anjana by the order dated 110.2001 was stopped on the ground that she had attained majority. So far as petitioner No. 1 Smt. Laxmi Veerwal is concerned, she was not held to be entitled for maintenance. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.02.2003, the petitioners have filed the instant revision petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned. 3. It is not in dispute that petitioner No. 2 Ku. Anjana was born on 04.01.1982 and on the date of the impugned order dated 15.02.2003, she was about 22 years in age and thus attained majority and as such she is not entitled for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code. So far as petitioner No. 1 Smt. Laxmi Veerwal is concerned, even by the initial order dated 110.2001, she was not held to be entitled for the maintenance as she was capable to maintaining herself . 4. Apart from maintenance to petitioner No. 3 Kumari Ranjana, the respondent has to maintain his son and ailing father who is suffering from malingnancy and the respondent has placed on record the medical prescription and treatment bills of his father. 5. 4. Apart from maintenance to petitioner No. 3 Kumari Ranjana, the respondent has to maintain his son and ailing father who is suffering from malingnancy and the respondent has placed on record the medical prescription and treatment bills of his father. 5. Section 125 of the Code provides that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself , or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself , or (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself , or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself , a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such Magistrate think fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioners fall under Clause (b) to Sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Code. On reading of Section 125 of the Code, it is clear that the children, on attaining majority, cannot get maintenance in absence of physical or mental infirmity, as held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in K. Sivaram vs. K. Mangalamba, 1990 CrLJ 1880 . 7. In this view of the matter, the finding of the Family Court holding petitioner No. 2 not entitled for maintenance on attaining majority, cannot be said to be erroneous. So far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, maintenance was refused to her at the initial stage and, therefore, there arises no question of any enhancement. So far as petitioner No. 3 is concerned, though by now she must have attained majority, but the Family Court enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 700/ -, which cannot be said to be inadequate looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the other liabilities of the respondent. 8. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error, illegality or perversity in the order of the Family Court. 500/- to Rs. 700/ -, which cannot be said to be inadequate looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the other liabilities of the respondent. 8. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error, illegality or perversity in the order of the Family Court. The revision petition lacks merit and it is dismissed accordingly.