IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-14024 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: May 09, 2011 Shambu Ram Petitioner Versus Sumitra Devi and others Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) Crl. Misc. No. 25226 of 2011 Application is allowed as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. M-14024 of 2011 This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 16.1.2010 passed by learned District Judge (Family Court) Bhiwani whereby amount of maintenance has been enhanced from ` 500/- to ` 1200/- per month to respondent No. 1 and from ` 150/- to ` 700/- per month to respondents No. 2 and 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without deciding the objections filed by the petitioner, the impugned order was passed. Moreover, respondents No. 2 and 3 are major and they are not entitled for any maintenance as per Section 125 Cr.P.C. as the maintenance can be granted only to the minor children. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that counsel appearing before the lower Court was not authorised by the petitioner at the time of hearing of proceedings under Section 127 Cr.P.C. Crl. Misc. No. M-14024 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the counsel who appeared while passing of the impugned order was never authorised by the petitioner in the proceedings under Section 127 Cr.P.C., does not carry any weight as no complaint has ever been made by the petitioner. Moreover the age of majority or minority is a matter of evidence and that can be decided by the lower Court and not by this Court at the time of passing and granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. No ground to interfere with the impugned order. Dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) 09.05.2011 JUDGE reena