ORDER : B.N. Karia, J. 1. When the matter was placed for admission, respondent No. 1 herself is present before the court and she identifies herself as Bhartiben Rakeshbhai Damir. 2. Rule returnable on 2nd December 2019. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No. 2-State. Respondent No. 1-Bhartiben Rakeshbhai Damir waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No. 1, as she being a practicing advocate. 3. The applicant has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2019 passed by learned Judge, Family Court No. 4, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2943 of 2002. 4. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and the respondent No. 1. 5. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that granting 25% of the net income of the applicant per month regularly is against the settled position of law and no justifiable reasons were recorded by the learned Judge in granting such amount of maintenance to the respondent No. 1. He has further submitted that son Dhruvesh had attained majority in the year 2015 and as per provisions of Section 125(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he is not entitled for maintenance from March 2015, however, learned Judge has awarded 25% of net salary of the applicant. It is further submitted that there is no provisions under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. to award 6% simple interest if amount of maintenance is not paid within a period 30 days, however, learned Judge has completely ignored the provisions and passed an order of simple interest at the rate of 6%. It is further submitted that the divorce decree was granted by the learned Judge on the ground of desertion on the very same day when the impugned order was passed. However, the same thing was not considered as the applicant has never deserted the respondent No. 1. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the applicant to grant interim relief as prayed by him in para 6(c). 6. Respondent No. 1 has vehemently opposed the prayer and argued that learned Judge has rightly considered the evidence on record, as the applicant is getting more than Rs. 2 lacs by salary per month. That, applicant is not paying maintenance regularly. 6. Respondent No. 1 has vehemently opposed the prayer and argued that learned Judge has rightly considered the evidence on record, as the applicant is getting more than Rs. 2 lacs by salary per month. That, applicant is not paying maintenance regularly. She has relied upon the judgment passed by Bombay High Court in Civil Writ petition No. 2117 of 2012 and argued that however, attaining majority by the son, he is entitled to claim maintenance from his father. As there is huge arrears of maintenance and applicant is not paying amount of maintenance regularly to her, it is submitted that learned Judge, Family Court has committed no error in passing the order, and therefore, no interim relief can be granted as prayed for by the applicant. 7. Learned APP has requested to pass necessary order so far as interim relief is concerned. 8. Having perused the record and submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant, learned APP for the respondent-State as well as respondent No. 1, who herself is a practicing lawyer and the available record, it appears that in an application for interim maintenance, the applicant was directed to pay Rs. 12,000/- per month to the respondent No. 1 and Rs. 8,000/- per month to her son. As admitted by respondent No. 1, her son Dhruvesh has got majority in the month of March 2015. It also appears from the record that the petition for divorce preferred by the present applicant was allowed by the learned Judge, Family court on the very same day when the impugned order has been passed. 9. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Jayvardhan Sinh Chapotkat v. Ajayveer Chapotkat in Civil Writ Petition No. 2117 of 2012, has held in para 16 that: "16. A major son may not be entitled for maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act. In the present case, the petitioner has made out a specific claim for educational expenses which can be availed by him after attaining the age of 18 years. The son/claimant would attain majority as far as age is concerned, however, it would not be the proper age for becoming economically independent so as to earn his living. In the present case, the petitioner has made out a specific claim for educational expenses which can be availed by him after attaining the age of 18 years. The son/claimant would attain majority as far as age is concerned, however, it would not be the proper age for becoming economically independent so as to earn his living. In the given facts of the case, a major son of the well-educated and economically sound parents can claim educational expenses from his father or mother irrespective of the fact that he has attained majority. It is not maintenance in strict sense as contemplated under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or maintenance as contemplated under Section of Hindu Marriage Act. 10. Learned advocate for the applicant, at this juncture, has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2016 (3) GLR 1877 (Nitaben Dineshkumar Oza v. Dineshkumar Ishwarlal Oza), wherein this court has taken view that if a child whether legitimate or illegitimate has attained majority as per the Indian Majority Act 1875 and is not suffering by any physical or mental abnormality or injury, thereby unable to maintain him, would not be entitled to receive maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 11. Judgment relied upon by the respondent No. 1 was in connection with the Hindu marriage Act. 12. There is no observation, record or findings arrived at by the Judge of Family Court so far as 7th Pay Commission is applied to the present applicant. Respondent No. 1 is unable to draw any attention of this Court from the judgment about applicability of the 7th Pay Commission or the arrears thereof received by the present applicant. However, interest of the respondent No. 1 would required to be taken care by this Court. 13. At present, the applicant is permitted to deposit Rs. 10/- (Ten) lacs by way of arrears of maintenance. Out of the said amount, the applicant shall deposit Rs. 5 (Five) lacs within a period of one week from the date of passing of this order and thereafter, within three weeks, the remaining amount of Rs. 5 lacs shall be deposited by the applicant before the Family Court at Ahmedabad. 14. Interim relief as sought for in para 6(c) stands granted till the next date of hearing. 5 (Five) lacs within a period of one week from the date of passing of this order and thereafter, within three weeks, the remaining amount of Rs. 5 lacs shall be deposited by the applicant before the Family Court at Ahmedabad. 14. Interim relief as sought for in para 6(c) stands granted till the next date of hearing. The impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2019 passed by learned Judge, Family Court No. 4, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2943 of 2002 shall be stayed till the next date of hearing. 15. The applicant shall pay Rs. 35,000/- per month towards maintenance amount to the respondent No. 1 regularly till hearing and final disposal of this revision application.