ORDER : Pankaj Bhandari, J. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by judgment and order dated 05.08.2014 passed by the Judge, Family Court No. 2, Jaipur, whereby, the application for enhancement of maintenance filed under section 127 of Cr.P.C., 1973 by the respondents was allowed and maintenance was enhanced from Rs. 1,000/- to 3,000/- for respondent No. 1 and from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 2,000/- for respondent No. 2. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the respondent wife deserted her husband and as per Sub-Section (4) of section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 she was not entitled to claim any maintenance. 3. It is also contended that the petitioner husband got a decree of divorce against the wife on the ground of desertion which was affirmed by the Appellate Court. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on "Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Smt. Sunita & ors. 2013 (2) RCC Page 477." & "Smt. Rajanti v. Dr. Shri Phool & Anr. RLR 1989 (2), Page 96." & "Narain Lal v. Smt. Diwali & Anr. 1994 RCC, Page 551." 4. It is also contended that the Court below has awarded the maintenance to respondent No. 2 son but in the impugned order it has not mentioned as to till when the maintenance would be payable. The contention is raised on the ground that only minor son is entitle to maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and since respondent No. 2 has attained majority the impugned order deserves to be amended accordingly. 5. It is also contended that the respondent has entered into a second marriage and in the LIC Form Ram Chander was mentioned as the name of her husband which form was signed by the respondent No. 1. 6. Counsel for the respondents have opposed the revision petition. Their contention is that Sub-Clause 4 of Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 is not applicable as Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 is a beneficial legislation and it takes care of divorced wife and divorced wife is also entitled to maintain even if she is living separately from her ex-husband. 7. It is also contended that the mention of name of Ram Chander as husband of the respondent No. 1 was objected by the respondent No. 2 immediately when she came to know that a wrong entry has been made in the form. 7. It is also contended that the mention of name of Ram Chander as husband of the respondent No. 1 was objected by the respondent No. 2 immediately when she came to know that a wrong entry has been made in the form. It is contended that Ram Chander is within sapinda category and no marriage could be solemnized between Ram Chander and the present respondent No. 1. 8. I have considered the contentions. 9. This Court was ceased with a similar matters where wife was found to be living in adultery and the husband got a decree of divorce on the ground of wife living in adultery. 10. This Court placing reliance on "Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri, 2000 Criminal Law Journal 1498." held that the Bar created under Sub-Section (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 is not attracted as the marriage did not subsist on the date when the application was moved. 11. The Apex Court in the case of "Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri" (supra) held as under:- "A women has two distinct right for maintenance as wife she is entitled to maintenance unless she suffer from any of the disabilities indicated in Section 125(4). In another capacity, namely, as divorced women she is again entitled to claim maintenance from the person of whom she was once the wife. A women after divorce becomes a destitute. If she cannot maintain herself or remains unmarried the man who was, once, her husband continues to be under a statutory duty and obligation to provide maintenance to her." 12. The judgment referred to by the counsel for the petitioner i.e. "Smt. Rajanti v. Dr. Shri Phool & Anr." (supra) and "Narain Lal v. Smt. Diwali & Anr." (supra) were pronounced prior to the decision by the Apex Court. When "Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Smt. Sunita & ors." (supra) was pronounced, the judgment of Apex Court in the case of "Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri" (supra) was not brought to the notice of the Rajasthan High Court. The Court below has not committed any perversity in allowing the application filed under section 127 of Cr.P.C., 1973 on changed circumstances and merely because the respondent No. 1 is living separately the same would not disentitle her from claiming maintenance. 13. The contention of counsel for the petitioner that section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 provides for maintenance to minor child only cannot be disputed. 13. The contention of counsel for the petitioner that section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 provides for maintenance to minor child only cannot be disputed. section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 in unequivocal terms provides that order for maintenance can be passed against a person having sufficient means who neglects or refuses to maintain his legitimate or illegitimate minor child the Section thus pre-supposes the child to be a minor for obtaining maintenance. 14. It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 2 has attained majority on 22.05.2013 i.e. prior to the passing of order dated 05.08.2014. In view of the fact that a major son cannot receive maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and the impugned order was passed after he attained majority. The impugned order to the extent it pertains to the respondent No. 2 son is set-aside, but looking to the condition of the respondent as also the fact that the respondent No. 2 is a student and the amount received might have been spent by them, no order needs to be passed for refund of the amount paid in excess to the respondent No. 2. However, henceforth, he will not be entitled to receive any maintenance in view of the Bar under section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 15. The revision petition is accordingly partly allowed. The amount of maintenance awarded to respondent No. 1 is upheld. As far as respondent No. 2 is concerned he will not be entitled to receive any maintenance henceforth. The amount however received by him would not be refunded. Stay application stands disposed. Record of the Court below be returned forthwith.