ORDER : RPFC No.200008/2018 is filed by the wife and children of Shamrao seeking enhancement in the monthly maintenance and RPFC No.200033/2018 is filed by husband – Shamrao questioning the order dated 28.11.2017 passed in Crl.Misc. No.97/2016 by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Kalaburagi granting enhanced maintenance of Rs.7,500/p.m. to the wife first petitioner therein and Rs.4,000/p.m. to third petitioner therein from the date of petition. Review Petition No.200023/2016 is filed seeking review of the order dated 24.08.2010 passed in RPFC No.537/2010. 2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties are hereinafter addressed in accordance with the status of their relationship i.e., the petitioners in RPFC No.200008/2018 as the wife and children and petitioner in RPFC No.200033/2018 as husband. 3. Before adverting on the other aspects of the case, the nature of the petition filed by parties herein is that in RPFC No.200008/2018 wife Sunita and children Master Karan and Kumari Kajal for enhancement of the maintenance over the present rate of Rs.7,500/and Rs.4,000/to the mother and daughter respectively by the learned Judge, Family Court. 4. Per contra, husband Shamrao has filed RPFC No.200033/2018 against the wife and daughter challenging the grant of maintenance of Rs.7,500/and Rs.4000/by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Kalaburagi in Crl.Misc. No.97/2016. 5. Originally, Crl.Misc. No.129/2005 came to be filed by the wife and children wherein wife for herself and as a guardian for children sought maintenance claiming the husband being possessed of sufficient means neglected wife and children from being maintained knowing fully well that they were unable tSo maintain themselves. Husband denied the contention and assertions of wife and children. The matter came to be disposed of on 11.07.2005 wherein the maintenance of Rs.2,400/per month was granted. However, wife and children filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance amount in Crl.Misc.No.35/2008 before the learned District Judge, Family Court. On contest the matter came to be adjudicated on 02.02.2010 on which date said Crl.Misc. No.35/2008 filed by wife and children came to be allowed in part and the maintenance amount was enhanced at the following rate; Rs.4,000/per month to the wife and Rs.2,000/each per month to the children from the date of petition. On contest the matter came to be adjudicated on 02.02.2010 on which date said Crl.Misc. No.35/2008 filed by wife and children came to be allowed in part and the maintenance amount was enhanced at the following rate; Rs.4,000/per month to the wife and Rs.2,000/each per month to the children from the date of petition. Against said order, the husband preferred revision petition in RPFC No.537/2010 and it is stated that the matter ended in compromise through mediation between the parties and it was disposed of under the following terms: 1. The petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/p.m. to Resp1 from the date of petition. 2. The petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/p.m. to R2 and R3 each from the date of petition. 3. The petitioner agreed to deposit an amount of Rs.750/p.m. in a R.D. A/c opened in the name of R2 and R3 each. Both the petitioner and Respt1 shall stand as a guardian to the A/c opened in the name of R2 and R3. 4. The petitioner is at liberty to see the R2, R3 his son and daughter whenever he wants viz., on the occasions of festivals, holidays – etc., 5. The petitioner is at liberty to take R2 and R3 with him during winter/summer holidays and for any other important occasion. 6. If any arrears of maintenance amount is due; 50% shall be paid to the R1 in 5 equal monthly installments. 7. The balance 50% of arrears of maintenance amount shall be deposited in the name of R2 and R3 in a fixed deposit in the month of Jan 2011. 8. Henceforth the respondents shall not claim any enhancement of maintenance in due course. Explained the terms and conditions to both the petitioner in presence of their counsel and agreed to. 6. Thus, the terms of mediation included that the maintenance to the wife will be accepted at Rs.2,500/p.m. to the wife and Rs.2,000/each for the children. 7. 8. Henceforth the respondents shall not claim any enhancement of maintenance in due course. Explained the terms and conditions to both the petitioner in presence of their counsel and agreed to. 6. Thus, the terms of mediation included that the maintenance to the wife will be accepted at Rs.2,500/p.m. to the wife and Rs.2,000/each for the children. 7. Meanwhile, the learned counsel for the husband Sri Veeranagouda Malipatil submits that the wife and children filed petition in Crl.Misc.No.105/2013 under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance and the said petition came to be dismissed by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Kalaburagi by virtue of disposal of RPFC No.537/2010 wherein the maximum amount of maintenance was fixed at Rs.2,500/and Rs.2,000/to the wife and children respectively and also holding that they could not have claimed more than that. The petition in Crl.Misc. No.105/2013 was dismissed on 6.9.2014. 8. By virtue of dismissal of Crl.Misc. No.105/2013 the wife and children filed Review Petition No.200023/2016, that came to be allowed by this Court on 21.07.2016 wherein the condition or the restriction against claiming of maintenance beyond Rs.2,500/and Rs.2000/respectively was ordered to be removed. That paved way for the wife and children to make a fresh claim under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., which was done by filing Crl.Misc. No.97/2016 before the Family Court, Kalaburagi and that came to be disposed of on 28.11.2017 wherein the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. was allowed in part and enhancement of maintenance was made at the rate of Rs.7,500/p.m. to the wife and Rs.4,000/p.m. to the daughter Kajal and petition in respect of son was rejected on account of he attaining majority. Thereafter, it was the turn of the husband to challenge the order dated 28.11.2017 in Crl.Misc. No.97/2016 against the enhancement of maintenance. That was done by the husband in RPFC No.200033/2018, which also is coming up for disposal. 9. In the meanwhile, the husband has filed IA No.1/18 seeking condonation of delay of 611 days in filing recalling applicationIA2/18 and IA2/18 is filed for recalling of the order dated 21.07.2016 passed in RP No.200023/2016 in RPFC No.537/2010. 10. That was done by the husband in RPFC No.200033/2018, which also is coming up for disposal. 9. In the meanwhile, the husband has filed IA No.1/18 seeking condonation of delay of 611 days in filing recalling applicationIA2/18 and IA2/18 is filed for recalling of the order dated 21.07.2016 passed in RP No.200023/2016 in RPFC No.537/2010. 10. In the circumstances of the case, considering the interest of natural justice and complete adjudication of the matter, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and the delay in filing the recalling application is condoned and the IA2/2018 is taken up for disposal to consider the matter of recalling the order passed in RP No.200023/2016. 11. Insofar as the order passed in RP No.200023/2016 is concerned, this Court has observed that the right granted under statute cannot be curtailed with reference to the scope of Section 127 of Cr.P.C. that provides for variation, may be in the form of enhancement, reduction or even cancellation of maintenance granted under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. concur with the said finding and do not find any embargo to continue on the premise. Accordingly, IA2/18 filed in RP No.200023/2016 is rejected. 12. Now the Court is left with for adjudicating the RPFC No.200008/2018 filed by the wife and children seeking enhancement of maintenance amount granted in Crl.Misc. No.97/2016 and also grant of maintenance to son, as the learned District Judge, Family Court held that the petitioner No.2 son having attained the majority is not entitled for further maintenance and RPFC No.200033/2018 filed by the husband for reduction of maintenance granted to the wife and daughter. 13. Learned counsel for the former wife and children Smt. Sharada R. Patil would submit that the amount of maintenance @ Rs.7,500/and Rs.4,000/falls short of minimum requirement and it is difficult for both the wife and children to counter basic necessities. She would further submit that son is not earning person and is a student plus depending on the petitioner No.1. She would further submit that former husbandShamrao is earning sufficiently and has no additional responsibility. Shamrao former husband was working as telephone operator in State Bank of India and was getting handsome salary of Rs.60,000/per month and has no additional responsibilities. 14. She would further submit that former husbandShamrao is earning sufficiently and has no additional responsibility. Shamrao former husband was working as telephone operator in State Bank of India and was getting handsome salary of Rs.60,000/per month and has no additional responsibilities. 14. Learned Counsel for former husband Shamrao, Sri Veerangouda Patil would submit that the former wife Sunita petitioner No.1 in RPFC No.200008/2018 cautiously and after considering all the circumstances went on record by assessing the maintenance at Rs.2,500/for her and Rs.2,000/each for the children. Now she cannot turn around and claim. In this connection, the learned counsel would further submit that the matter that was ended in a compromise before the Mediation Centre could not have been agitated again and the conduct of the petitioner – former wife Sunita and children is not proper. The present RPFC is filed by all the petitioners namely, wife Sunita, son Karan and daughter Kajal. In the ends of social justice, the claim of petitioner No.2 is also considered. 15. Learned counsel Sri Veerannagouda would submit that when Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.35/2008 was disposed of, the finding of the trial Court wherein petitioner No.2 Karan (Son) was ordered to be entitled for maintenance during his minority and the said order was received as it was and not challenged. He would further submit that by Section 125 (2) of Cr.P.C. enables maintenance to the minor children alone whether legitimate or illegitimate. In the circumstances, petitioner No.2 Karan who has attained majority thus is estopped from claiming maintenance. Insofar as the maintenance is concerned certain designated relationships who are unable to maintain themselves more particularly for necessaries are having legal right to claim maintenance from certain other designated relationship and Section 125 of Cr.P.C. provides for the right to claim and duty to pay the maintenance by the persons of status of relationship stated therein. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is as under: 125. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is as under: 125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.(1) 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 thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means: [Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceedings regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this subsection, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceedings which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.] 16. Insofar as clause (a) and (b) of the Code provides for right to claim maintenance by a wife who is unable to maintain herself. Secondly a child who is legitimate or illegitimate so long they are in minority whether married or not unable to maintain itself. 17. The very interpretation would be from basic object of the Act wherein dependents are entitled to claim maintenance from a person on whom they are depending for their necessities. 18. Secondly a child who is legitimate or illegitimate so long they are in minority whether married or not unable to maintain itself. 17. The very interpretation would be from basic object of the Act wherein dependents are entitled to claim maintenance from a person on whom they are depending for their necessities. 18. In this connection, invariably when son has crossed the age of minority, question arises whether is he entitled to claim maintenance? The generality of the provision would be to note that when a son who has crossed 18 years is infirm, paralytic or crippled, the parent cannot wash away the responsibility claiming on the basis of the age 18 years. On the other hand, change of circumstances from meanslessness to resourcefulness would be the factor that are considered for considering the entitlement of a person whether to continue maintenance or not. It is also necessary to be stated that the scheme of the Act is not that maintenance is granted to legal representative or legal heir. On the other hand, it is for a dependant. 19. The concept of maintenance, “unable to maintain”, “ liability to maintain” “to be maintained” are to be construed in a larger perception. Necessities are those which are necessary to keep the body and soul together. 20. A person who is entitled to be maintained is not justified in demanding luxuries without considering the economic status of the person who is liable to maintain. At the same time, the source of income to a dependent relation cannot ipso facto disqualify her or him from claiming maintenance when it is insufficient. As stated above the amount required for maintenance is considered with reference to bare minimum requirement at par with necessaries in accordance with the status of the parties. No doubt, necessaries vary from person to person, place to place, time to time and from one culture to another culture. This always requires assessment on reasonable approach wherein one has to strike balance among the demand, requirements of the sum that is required to counter the necessities. At the same time, it cannot be unreasonably low or exorbitant or excessive. Each case will have to be ascertained on its merit. This always requires assessment on reasonable approach wherein one has to strike balance among the demand, requirements of the sum that is required to counter the necessities. At the same time, it cannot be unreasonably low or exorbitant or excessive. Each case will have to be ascertained on its merit. The using of the term “unable to maintain” itself has to be considered in a larger perception and the object of Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though statutory procedural legislation is hallmark of social justice. It is this part of the Code, which makes it a social legislation. 21. Coming to the facts of the case petitioner No.2 Karan no doubt has become a major. Admittedly, it is not the case of former husband Shamrao that the position of his son Karan has changed with reference to economic status, dependency or source of income. The position of the said Karan is status quo ante except that he is a late minor or present major. Thus, insofar as the said person is concerned, he is stated to be studying and the only impact would be his requirements go on increasing till he starts earning. No doubt, under the circumstances, in case, a change of circumstance occurs entitling the Shamrao to pray for relieving him from the responsibility as contemplated under section 127 of Cr.P.C., doors will not be closed. Insofar as case on hand is concerned, the present son cannot be delisted from group of wife and children in the matter of maintenance. I do not accept the theory of stopping the maintenance to son Karan only on the basis of attaining majority. I find right to maintain is also a moral duty besides a legal one. Thus, till the change of circumstance occurs, the former husband Shamrao, the petitioner in RPFC No. 200033/2018 is liable to maintain wife and the children that includes son Karan and daughter Kajal. 22. Insofar as rate of maintenance is concerned, the learned Trial Judge has awarded Rs. 7,500/to the wife and Rs.4,000/to daughter which comes up to Rs.11,500/per month. In the circumstances of the case, I find it is just and proper to order maintenance amount at Rs.7,500/to wife Sunita. 22. Insofar as rate of maintenance is concerned, the learned Trial Judge has awarded Rs. 7,500/to the wife and Rs.4,000/to daughter which comes up to Rs.11,500/per month. In the circumstances of the case, I find it is just and proper to order maintenance amount at Rs.7,500/to wife Sunita. Insofar as daughter is concerned, an amount of maintenance in the present rate at Rs.4,000/deserves to be reduced to Rs.3,000/p.m. and an amount of Rs.3,000/p.m. deserves to be granted to the son Karan totaling to Rs.13,500/per month from the date of this petition. The present structure of maintenance appears to be just, fair and ideal. 23. Accordingly, RPFC No.200008/2018 is partly allowed. The revision petitioner husband is directed to pay Rs.7,500/per month to wife Sunita from the date of petition till her remarriage or death whichever is earlier, Rs.3,000/per month to son Karan from the date of petition till he gets resource and Rs.3,000/per month to daughter Kajal from the date of petition till she gets married. RPFCNo.200033/2018 is dismissed.