( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.151 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.151 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.151 OF 2000 Shri Rajaram Dada Garale .. Applicant. Versus 1. Devikabai Rajaram Garale & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Sachin U.Dhakephalkar for the applicant. Ms.Alpa Jhaveri, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 4th June, 2008. DATED : 4th June, 2008. DATED : 4th June, 2008. ORAL JUDGEMENT :- ORAL JUDGEMENT :- ORAL JUDGEMENT :- 1. Mr.S.U.Dhakephalkar for the applicant. Ms.Alpa Jhaveri for the State of Maharashtra. None for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 filed an application for maintenance being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.40 of 1994 in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Atpadi, District Sangli against the present applicant. The learned J.M.F.C., Atpadi by his order dated 22.2.1995 granted maintenance to respondents 1 and 2 to the tune of Rs.200/- per month. 3. The present applicant realised that respondent No.2 Balaji son of the applicant and respondent No.1 has attained the age of majority and, therefore, the present applicant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.51 of 1997 for annulling the order of maintenance so far as respondent No.2 is concerned. ( 2 ) That application was decided by the learned Trial Judge by order dated 13.7.1999. That application came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 13.7.1999, the applicant straightaway preferred this revision application rather than approaching the learned Additional Sessions Judge before whom normally the revision should have been filed. 4. I have heard learned Advocate Mr.Dhakephalkar for the applicant. Respondents 1 and 2 have remained absent though served. The paragraph No.5 of the impugned order goes to mention that the question of inability of respondent No.2 to maintain himself was decided by the learned Trial Judge. In the order the learned Trial Judge while rejecting the application for cancellation of maintenance in favour of respondent No.2 introduced the principles of res-judicata and gave reasons and accordingly came to the conclusion that the order of maintenance cannot be annulled. The learned Advocate Mr.Dhakephalkar had made a grievance before this Court that the respondent No.1 had produced the bonafide certificate showing therein the date of birth of respondent No.2 as 8.4.1976 and that the said document was brought to the notice of the learned Trial Judge and even then the learned Trial Judge did not consider the question of revocation of the order of maintenance sofar as ( 3 ) respondent No.2 is concerned. According to the learned Advocate Mr.Dhakephalkar, reading the provisions of Section 125(1)(c) of Cr.P.C., the learned Trial Judge ought to have satisfied himself about the date on which the respondent No.2 has attained the age of majority and upon realising that respondent No.2 has attained the age of majority on the date when the application was filed, the learned Trial Judge should have revoked the order of maintenance granted in favour of respondent No.2. According to Mr.Dhakephalkar, the order dated 13.7.1999 is patently illegal and erroneous and is required to be set aside. 5. I have considered the scope of present revision. The observations of the learned Trial Judge in the impugned order dated 13.7.1999 at paragraph 5 are totally uncalled for. What was required to be done by the learned Trial Judge was to satisfy himself as to whether the respondent No.2 had attained the age of majority on the date when the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.51 of 1997 was filed by the present applicant. The learned Trial Judge ought to have satisfied himself about the averments in the said application and reasons for filing the said application and ought to have decided the matter on merits. The learned Trial Judge unnecessarily entered ( 4 ) into the question of res-judicata and what is all referred to in paragraph No.5. In my view, it was equally obligatory on the part of the learned Trial Judge to ascertain the provisions of Section 125(1)(c) as to the Bar of granting maintenance to a person who has attained the age of majority and the relevant aspects. The learned Trial Judge did not do so though he had admitted date of birth on the basis of record placed by respondent No.1 before the Court in the main proceedings. In my view, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, it would be proper to remand the matter to the Court of learned Trial Judge so that the learned Trial Judge can appreciate the provisions of law, the document, namely, domicile certificate at Exhibit-24 and pass an appropriate order. That will also provide an opportunity for the parties to attend the matter in the proper perspective. It may also provide an opportunity for the parties to place before the Court additional material as to whether the said respondent No.2 has started earning after attaining the age of majority. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I pass the following order :- a) The order dated 13.7.1999 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Atpadi in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.51 of 1997 is set aside. The application No.51 of 1997 is ( 5 ) restored to the file of learned J.M.F.C., Atpadi. b) The learned J.M.F.C., Atpadi shall dispose off the said application on merits after considering the provisions of Section 125(1)(c) and decided cases which would be cited by the applicant so as to support his contention that a major son is not entitled to maintenance. c) It will be open for the applicant to adduce additional evidence if according to the applicant, respondent No.2 is earning some amount by way of an income which will also be a factor in favour of the applicant. d) The learned J.M.F.C., Atpadi is directed to dispose off the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.51 of 1997 within one month from the date of receipt of this order. 6. Criminal Revision Application No.151 of 2000 stands disposed off in the above terms. ( 6 ) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)