IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 RPFC.No. 46 of 2008() --------------------- MC.142/2003 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER/2ND PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------- SIKHA, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. VIJAYAN V.N., VAISAKHA SANDHYA, PERUNNA KARA, -DO- VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, REP. BY SUSEELA NAIR AS HER GUARDIAN. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SRI.A.PARVATHI MENON RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT: ------------------------ VIJAYAN V.N., S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 48 YEARS, VALAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MYLAPRA KARA, MYLAPRA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT 'VYSAKHA SANDYA', PERUNNA KARA, PERUNNA VILLAGE,CHANGANACHERRY TALUK KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P.F.C. No. 46 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 15th day of February, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is against an order directing payment of maintenance to the petitioner/second claimant at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month till the date on which the petitioner attains majority. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the said order. The only grievance is that the learned Judge of the Family Court should not have limited the right to receive maintenance till the date of attainment of majority. 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner only contends that in the light of the decisions in Jagdish Jugtawat Vs. Manju Lata and others [(2002) 5 SCC 422] and Noor Saba Khatoon Vs. Mohd.Quasim [AIR 1997 SC 3280, the learned Judge should have recognized the right of the petitioner to claim R.P.F.C.No.46/08 : 2 : maintenance even after attainment of majority under the personal law applicable to the parties. 3. This question was considered by this Court earlier in Punnakkadan Muhammed Vs. Vadakkangara Kunhayisha & another [2003 (2) KLJ 629]. In the light of that decision, it is now well settled that in a claim under section 125 Cr.P.C., maintenance is liable to be paid only till the date of attainment of majority as stipulated in section 125 (1)(c). In the total absence of a contention or proof, that the claimant/petitioner is, by reason of physical or mental abnormality or injury, unable to maintain herself, the grievance of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. 4. This petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed but making it clear that the dismissal of this revision petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to claim appropriate relief in proceedings under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks