IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1409 OF 2004 Date:20-07-2011 Between: Masbathini Sreedhar Kumar and another ... Petitioners And Masabathuni Venkateswara Rao and another ... Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1409 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., assailing order passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.90 of 2002, dated 01-06-2004, on the file of the Court of IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ongole by which, maintenance granted to the revision petitioners @ Rs.300/- per month each by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur, in M.C. No.14 of 2000, on 06-08-2002,was reversed. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the revision petitioners happened to be minors, whereas the respondent is their father and even though the respondent has been working as Teacher and he got good means, he neglected and deserted the children and the children have been in the house of their maternal uncle and maternal grand-mother and the Enquiry Court properly examined the matter and arrived at correct finding, but the District Judge, improperly dismissed the CRP on flimsy grounds with regards to payment of maintenance to them and as the respondent is legally liable to maintain the children, hence, the order passed by the District Judge is liable to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel fort the respondent has contended that no negligence or desertion on the part of the respondent is established and he is entitled to the custody of the children and he has been ready to maintain them and he need not pay maintenance to them the order passed by the District Judge is tenable and therefore, consequently, the revision case is liable to be dismissed. It is also his contention that the petitioners have become majors admittedly and therefore, the question of awarding maintenance does not arise at all. 4. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the order passed by the District Judge in the Criminal Revision Petition. 5. POINT: There is no dispute that the petitioners are the children of the respondent. By virtue of Section 125 (1) (b) Cr.P.C., the respondent is liable to provide necessary maintenance to his legitimate or illegitimate minor children, whether they are married or not, when they are unable to maintain themselves and by virtue of Section 125 (1) (c) Cr.P.C., even a major child is entitled for necessary maintenance by reason of physical or mental abnormality or injury and inability to maintain himself or herself. Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not provide for rejection of maintenance to the minor children on any grounds when they got no means to maintain themselves. They are to be provided necessary maintenance wherever they are, when they got no means to maintain themselves whereas, on the other hand, the respondent, as their father, is under legal obligation to provide maintenance to them. 6. In fact, it is observed by the learned District Judge in his order that the evidence recorded is silent about what is respondent claims that he is willing to maintain the petitioners and it is not the case of the petitioners that their interest is at stake in the hands of the respondent and the second marriage of the respondent after the death of his wife does not amount to neglecting the petitioners and so on. In fact, those circumstances cannot be taken into consideration with regards to the question of granting maintenance to the petitioners when the father got legal obligation to do so irrespective of existence of other related factors. Further the respondent as the father of the revision petitioners is at liberty to take necessary steps for the custody of the revision petitioners whereas till that time, he is obligated to provide them necessary maintenance. 7. When it is clear that the revision petitioners are in the house of their matrimonial grand parents, it is to be deemed that the latter have been maintaining them even though they got no legal obligation to do so. Therefore, the observation made by the District Judge in the CRP is quite untenable and accordingly, the order passed by him is liable to be set aside. Further, the Enquiry Court has properly examined the matter, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the same. 8. Further, admittedly, the respondent has been working as Teacher and in fact, there is no dispute about his capacity to maintain the children. Further, the revision petitioners are not entitled to any maintenance in view of the provisions of Section 125 (1) Cr.P.C. from the date of becoming majors. Consequently, they are only entitled to the arrears of maintenance payable by the respondent, which is to be arrived at by making necessary calculations. 9. For the reasons discussed above, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting aside the order passed in the Criminal Revision Petition confirming the order passed by the Enquiry Court, observing that necessary steps are to be taken to collect the arrears of maintenance. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J July 20, 2011. KTL