IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1105 of 2006 RAJENDRA BISHWAS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 3.9.2008. This Cr. Revision has been filed against the order dated 25.11.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhepura in Misc. Case No. 2 of 2004 thereby the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.1000/- each to opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Heard the parties. The admitted fact is that opposite party no. 2 is the wife and opposite party no. 3 is the son of the petitioner, Rajendra Bishwas. Opposite party filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner for maintenance on the ground that the petitioner has deserted her and her minor son since last two years and refused to maintain them and also to meet the expenses of study of opposite party no. 3. The petitioner contested the case mainly on the ground that opposite party no. 2 is leading adulterous life with his cousin Bharat Bishwas. Opposite party no. 3 is also not a minor. He is more than 20 years of age. He is in collusion with Bharat Bishwas. It is further alleged that opposite parties are in possession of the house and agricultural lands which are sufficient to meet their needs. The petitioner is suffering from eye disease. He is not in a position to give maintenance to opposite parties. Both the parties led oral evidence. Learned family court upon consideration of the evidence rejected the allegation of adultery - 2 - and awarded maintenance to opposite parties. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that order in question is bad in law as well as on fact. There are sufficient materials to show that opposite party no. 2 is leading adulterous life with Bharat Bishwas. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 3 is not entitled to get maintenance as he has already attained the age of majority being more than 20 years. It is well settled that that charge of adultery is very serious and therefore it must be proved by cogent and reliable evidence. Mere vague and general allegation is not sufficient. Petitioner in paragraph 3 of his show-cause has alleged allegation of adultery for the first time. No period or time has been given. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner ever earlier raised this grievance by filing divorce suit or criminal case. Keeping himself quiet for long time shows hollowness of the allegation. The learned court below has considered the evidence of both the parties and has rightly rejected the charge of adultery. So far the age of opposite party no. 3 is concerned, it is apparent from paragraph 21 of the order that that petitioner himself as OW-1 stated before the Court that date of birth of opposite party no. 3 is 14.1.1989. Thus, on the date of the petition i.e. 14.1.2004 as well as on the date of the order dated 25.11.2006, opposite party no. 3 was minor being less than 18 years. Thus, he is entitled to get maintenance but only up to the age of 18 years and not later. In the result, this Cr. Revision is dismissed with the above - 3 - observation with regard to opposite party no. 3. Opposite party no. 3 shall be entitled to get maintenance as directed by the lower court only up to the age of 18 years i.e. 14.1.2007. kanchan (Ghanshyam Prasad, J.)