Judgment :- (RPFC filed U/S 19 (4) of the family Courts act against the order dated; 16.2006 passed in Crl.Misc.No.22/2005 on the file of the Judge, family Court, Bijapur, partly allowing the petition filed U/s 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance amount.) The petitioner herein, who is the husband of the respondent No.1 and father of the respondent No.2, has challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 12.06.2006 passed in Crl.Misc No.22/2005 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bijapur, enhancing the maintenance payable by the petitioner herein to the respondent No.1 from Rs.300/- to Rs. 1,000/- per month and from Rs.200/- to Rs.800/- per month to respondent No.2. 2. The brief facts of the case is as under:- (a) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively being the wife and son of the petitioner, filed maintenance petition in Crl.Misc No.37/1992 on the file of the learned J.M.F.C., Basavana Bagewadi, District Bijapur. The Said petition came to be allowed and a sum of Rs.300/-per month and another sum of Rs.200/- per month was awarded in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively towards their maintenance. Thereafter, the respondents filed a petition under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the said maintenance. After considering the legal contentions of the petitioner and respondents on the question of enhancement of maintenance, the Family Court, passed the impugned order, enhancing the maintenance from Rs.300/- to Rs.1,000/- per month in favour of respondent No.1 and Rs.200/- to Rs. 800/- per month in favour of respondent No.2. The correctness of the said order is challenged in this revision petition. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties. During the course of argument, Sri. Ashok Kalyanashetty, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he will restrict the revision petition insofar as the impugned order relates to the enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 200/- to Rs.800/- per month in favour of the 2nd respondent, who is admittedly a major son. Learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of C. Byraiah Vs. B. Anasuya & Others reported in 1999 (1) KCCR 128 and the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of K. Sivaram Vs. K. Mangalamba and others reported in 1990 CRL.L.J 1880 and also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Noor Saha Khatoon Vs. Mohd. B. Anasuya & Others reported in 1999 (1) KCCR 128 and the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of K. Sivaram Vs. K. Mangalamba and others reported in 1990 CRL.L.J 1880 and also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Noor Saha Khatoon Vs. Mohd. Quasim reported in AIR 1997 SC 3280 contended that as provided under Section 125(1)(c) of Cr.P.C., a son, after attaining majority, would not be entitled to claim any maintenance from his father. 4. As against the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Vijaya R. Hanumanthgad the learned counsel for the respondents, while supporting the impugned order, submitted, placing reliance on the decision of High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Dr. Jagadish Jugtawat Vs. Manjulata and Ors., reported in I (2001) DMC 605 and also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanak Chand Vs. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal and Ors., reported in AIR 1970 SC 446 , that since the 2nd respondent son, who was minor and was unable to maintain himself as on the date of order of maintenance passed in Crl. Misc.No.37/92, continued to be unable to maintain himself even after attaining the age of majority, the Family Court is quite justified in enhancing the amount of maintenance payable to him by the petitioner father. She further contended that in view of the fact that the 2nd respondent son was granted maintenance when he was minor and he continued to be unable to maintain himself even after attaining the age of majority, he deserves to be further maintained by this father at least till the completes his education as he is still studying in II year of the degree course. 5. It is not in dispute that when the petition was filed in Crl.Misc.No.37/92 before the learned J.M.F.C., Basavana Bagewadi by both the respondents, the second respondent-son was minor, and, as on the date of filing the petition under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Bijapur in Crl.Misc.No.22/2005, he had attained the age of majority and inasmuch as he was aged 21 years as on the said date. Referring to the provisions of Section 125(1)(c) of Cr.P.C. and also relying on the decisions referred to supra, Sri. Referring to the provisions of Section 125(1)(c) of Cr.P.C. and also relying on the decisions referred to supra, Sri. Ashok Kalyanashetty, learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contended that the learned Judge of the Family Court committed serious error in enhancing the maintenance of the second respondent-son, despite the fact that by then he had attained the age of majority. 6. In first of the said decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, i.e. in the case of C. Byraiah Vs. B. Anasuya & Others reported in 1999(1) KCCR 128, this Court held: “The maintenance cannot be granted to Major children in the absence of any physical or natural abnormality or injury. In the said case before this Hon’ble Court, the daughters had attained the age of majority even before filing the petition and they were educated and gainfully employed. Therefore, it was held that so by this Court and the order granting interim maintenance in favour of the said daughters came to be set aside”. In 2nd of the said decisions i.e. the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of K. Sivaram Vs. K. Mangalamba and Others reported in 1990 CRL.L.J. 1880, it is observed at para-8 of the judgment as under: “As per Section 125, Crl.P.C., it is clear that the maintenance can be awarded only to minor children under section 125, Crl.P.C., whether married or not, when they are not also to maintain themselves. Only in special circumstances the maintenance can be awarded even after attaining the majority where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain herself. In the present case, the Court below has found that though the 1st respondent is a physically handicapped woman, respondents Nos.2 and 3 are quite well and intelligent. Therefore, I feel that the court below ought not to have awarded maintenance to them for a period beyond the age of their attaining majority. Therefore, the maintenance awarded to respondents Nos.2 and 3 is limited until their attaining the age of majority”. In the case of Noor Saha Khatoon Vs. Mohd. Therefore, I feel that the court below ought not to have awarded maintenance to them for a period beyond the age of their attaining majority. Therefore, the maintenance awarded to respondents Nos.2 and 3 is limited until their attaining the age of majority”. In the case of Noor Saha Khatoon Vs. Mohd. Quasim reported in AIR 1997 SC 3280 , which is third of the above decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed at para-10 as under: “Thus, both under the personal law and the statutory law (Section 125 of Cr.P.C) the obligation of a Muslim father, having sufficient means, to maintain his minor children, unable to maintain themselves, till they attain majority and in case of females till they get married, is absolute, notwithstanding the fact that the minor children are living with the divorced wife”. 7. Section125 (1) (c) of Cr.P.C. provides that if any person, having sufficient means, neglects or refuses to maintain 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, such child would be entitled to claim maintenance from his father. Thus it is clear, from a plain reading of these provisions and also the principles laid down in the above decisions, that if a son has to claim maintenance from his father even after attaining the age of majority, he should be unable to maintain himself by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury suffered by him. In the absence of any such physical or mental abnormality or injury, a son would not be entitled to claim maintenance from his father after attaining the age of majority. 8. In the case of Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat vs. Manjulata and Ors., reported in I (2001) DMC 605 which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent-son, it is held as under: “III. Criminal Procedure Code 1973 – Section 125 (b) – Maintenance: Liability to Maintain Children: ‘Child’ means upto the age of attaining majority. But Qualified by Words ‘Unable to Maintain’ Himself/Herself- Child entitled to avail benefit of maintenance even after attaining majority so long he/she remains unable to maintain himself/herself. Criminal Procedure Code 1973 – Section 125 (b) – Maintenance: Liability to Maintain Children: ‘Child’ means upto the age of attaining majority. But Qualified by Words ‘Unable to Maintain’ Himself/Herself- Child entitled to avail benefit of maintenance even after attaining majority so long he/she remains unable to maintain himself/herself. (Paras 26 & 27)” It is pertinent to note that before the High Court of Rajasthan, the above said case was of a daughter who had claimed maintenance from her father even after attaining the age of majority on the ground that she was still unmarried but, it was not the case of a son claiming maintenance even after attaining the age of majority without there being any physical or mental abnormality or injury resulting in his inability to maintain himself. Besides this, when the said case was taken before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in appeal (reported in (2002) % SCC 422), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the impugned judgment of High Court of Rajasthan granting maintenance in favour of the girl, who had attained the age of majority on the ground that she was still unmarried, did not call for interference as the said girl was entitled to claim maintenance by virtue of the provisions of Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 which provides that an unmarried girl, despite attaining the age of majority, would be entitled to maintenance. 9. As could be seen from the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, a Hindu girl would be entitled to the maintenance even after attaining the age of Majority if she still remains unmarried. But, this benefit is not extended to a son who has attained the age of majority. Therefore, the above decision of High Court of Rajasthan is of no help to the 2nd respondent son herein who has claimed maintenance from his father despite he attaining the age of majority even though he does not suffer from any physical or mental abnormality or injury. 10. Further, in thecase of Nanak Chand Vs. Therefore, the above decision of High Court of Rajasthan is of no help to the 2nd respondent son herein who has claimed maintenance from his father despite he attaining the age of majority even though he does not suffer from any physical or mental abnormality or injury. 10. Further, in thecase of Nanak Chand Vs. Chandra kishore Aggarwal and Others reported in AIR 1970 SC 446 which is relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while interpreting the meaning of ‘child’ as occurred in Section 488 of Criminal Procedure, 1898 has observed as under: “The word ‘Child’ in Section 488 does not mean a minor son or daughter. The real limitation is contained in the expression “unable to maintain itself”. (Para 12)” The word ‘Child’ is not defined in the Criminal Procedure Code itself. This word has different meaning in different context. Where the word ‘child’ is used in conjunction with parentage, it is not concerned with age. In Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code the word is used with reference to the father. There is no justification for saying that this section is confined to children who are under the age of majority. 11. On careful reading the provisions of Section 488 of Cr.P.C., 1898 and Section 125 (1) (C) of Cr.P.C., 1973, it is clear that in the latter provision it is only a minor son who is entitled to claim maintenance from his father till he attains the age of majority. Therefore, the principle laid down in Nanak Chand’s case cannot be made applicable to the present case. 12. Smt. Vijaya Hanmanthgad, Learned Counsel for the respondent-son vehemently contended that if this respondent, who is still a student studying in 2nd year of degree course, is not maintained by his father, at least till he completes his course, he would be forced to discontinue his studies and, in that event, he would be deprived of his opportunity to get a suitable job for his livelihood and therefore, this Court, exercising its discretionary powers, may direct the petitioner father to provide the necessary facilities towards his education. 13. 13. It is true that in these days, the children, whether male or female, would not be in a position to earn anything towards their own maintenance till they complete their education, at least by obtaining a Bachelor Degree or a Certificate in respect of a Diploma Course or any job oriented course. But the fact is that they cannot obtain such degree or certificate, till they attain the age of 20 to 22 years i.e., minimum of 2 to 4 years after they attain the age of majority. It is also true that father of such children has a duty and obligation, both moral and social, to maintain them despite they attaining the age of majority, so as to enable them to complete their education upto a certain stage, so that they would become eligible and competent to earn their livelihood by getting a suitable job or by opting some suitable profession or avocation. If such children are neglected in this regard, they may become disappointed and also frustrated and consequently they may resort to short-cut methods for getting what they need for their maintenance and education. Such a short cut method may be unlawful one or opposed to public policy & morality. Further, the chances of such neglected children becoming anti-social elements in consequence of such disappointment and frustration cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it would be a moral & Social obligation of every father to bring up his children, male or female, by giving proper education, culture etc., not only as his children, but also as the future citizens of the Nation. 14. But the fact remains that in the absence of any statutory provision empowering the Courts to direct the father of such children to provide them with the least minimum facilities required for their maintenance and education, at least up to a certain stage, so as to enable themselves to acquire the ability to maintain themselves, no order whatsoever can be passed by the Courts issuing any kind of direction in this regard. Nothing can be done in favour of such children till suitable amendments are brought by the legislature to the relevant provisions of law. 15. Nothing can be done in favour of such children till suitable amendments are brought by the legislature to the relevant provisions of law. 15. Since it is clear that a major son is not entitled, in law, to claim maintenance from his father unless such son has been suffering from any physical or mental abnormality or any injury resulting in his inability to maintain himself, I have no alternative but to hold that the 2nd respondent- son in this case cannot claim anything, as of his legal right, from his father, towards his maintenance or education. Though the petitioner-father has no legal obligation to maintain his son, nevertheless, he has social and moral obligation to provide him with bare minimum requirements till he completes his graduation and becomes able to maintain himself. Besides this it would be better if the petitioner-father keeps in his mind that if he does not discharge now his moral and social obligation towards his son, he would lose his moral right to enforce his legal right to maintenance against his son in future if for any reason, he becomes unable to maintain himself. Therefore, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the learned counsel for the petitioner-father shall, in the best interest of both the father and son, suitably advise the petitioner-father and persuade him to provide the 2nd respondent – son with the bare requirements so as to enable the latter to become able to maintain himself by completing his graduation. 16. In view of my foregoing discussion, I am of the opinion that the learned Judge of the Family Court committed error in enhancing the maintenance in favour of second respondent-son despite he attaining the age of majority and not suffering from any physical or natural abnormality or injury, resulting in his inability to maintain himself. Therefore, the impugned order, insofar it relates to the enhancement of maintenance in favour of second respondent deserves to be set aside. Hence, the following: Order This Revision Petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 12.06.2006 passed in Crl. Misc.No.22/2005 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bijapur, insofar as it relates to awarding of maintenance in favour of second respondent-son is set aside. The impugned order insofar as it relates to enhancement of maintenance in favour of first respondent-wife is left undisturbed. No order as to costs.