IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. MM(O) No. 21 of 2003 Date of decision: 05.6.2008 Chaman Lal alias Chaman Parkash Petitioner Versus Smt. Saroti Devi & Ors. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Surinder Sharma & Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. K.D. Sood & Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, Advocates. V.K.Ahuja, J. (Oral): This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, dated 3.12.2002. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents as applicants filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as against the present petitioner who was impleaded as a respondent. Applicant No. 1 Smt. Saroti Devi alleged that she was the wife of the respondent, while other applicants No. 2 to 5 were the minor children Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 of the respondent. The petition was filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. accordingly claiming maintenance which petition was allowed by the learned trial Court who granted maintenance in favour of the present respondents at the rate of Rs.500/- P.M. to each petitioner payable from the date of the petition. The present respondent filed a revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against the said judgment before the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, who vide his judgment dated 3.12.2002 dismissed the petition filed by the present petitioner and affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the recortd. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that insofar as respondent No.1 Saroti Devi is concerned as well as respondent No. 5 Anurag Kalia, the petitioner does not press the present petition challenging the maintenance awarded in their favour. However, it was submitted that respondent No. 5 shall be entitled to the maintenance only till the date of majority. Insofar as, respondents No. 2 to 4 are 3 concerned, it was submitted that they have become major on different dates as alleged in the petition filed by the petitioner and as such, they are not entitled to maintenance after the date of their becoming major. The learned counsel for the respondents admits that according to provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C., respondents No. 2 to 5 are entitled to the grant of maintenance being sons or daughter till the date of majority. He does not dispute the date of majority mentioned in the petition insofar as respondents No. 2 to 4 are concerned. However, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since respondent No. 5 has now become major, he will not be entitled to maintenance after the date of majority, which preposition is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed to this extent only that respondents No. 2 to 5 shall be entitled to maintenance awarded by the Courts below at the rate of Rs.500/- P.M. each till the date they attain majority and not thereafter. Insofar as maintenance granted in favour of respondent No. 1 is concerned, the same has not been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and those findings in her favour granting 4 maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- are affirmed accordingly. The petition is accordingly partly allowed as detailed above. The parties are left to bear their own costs. The petitioner is liable to deposit the arrears of maintenance amount balance payable to respondents No. 1 to 5 as directed above within sixty days from today. The petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above. In view of the final disposal of the main petition, all the pending Cr. Misc. Applications, if any, shall stand disposed of and any stay order passed, shall also stand vacated. June 05, 2008 ( V.K. Ahuja ) (BSS) Judge 5