THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1887 of 2009 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 31.12.2008 in Criminal Revision Petition No.41 of 2008 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. 2. The respondents 1 and 2, who are wife and daughter respectively, of the petitioner herein, along with one K.Venu, who is his son, filed M.C. No.31 of 2008, under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) for enhancement of maintenance granted to them in the earlier maintenance case. The trial Court, vide order dated 13.08.2008, allowed the M.C. enhancing the maintenance granted to the first respondent to Rs.3,000/- per month and to the second respondent to Rs.2,000/- per month, while dismissing the case against the son K.Venu. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition No.41 of 2008 and the learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned order, dismissed the revision confirming the order of the trial Court. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Petition is filed. 3. The trial Court, while granting maintenance to the second respondent, who is unmarried daughter, under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C., held that unmarried daughters, who attained majority, are entitled for maintenance from their father. The said order has been confirmed by the revisional court. 4. The short point that falls for consideration in this Criminal Petition is whether unmarried daughter who attained majority, is entitled for maintenance ? 5. Section 125 Cr.P.C. deals with maintenance of wives, children and parents. Section (1) (b) & (c) Cr.P.C. reads thus: “If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain – (a) … (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself,” Under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 125 Cr.P.C., a minor child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, whether married or not, who is unable to maintain itself, is entitled for maintenance. Clause (c) thereof provides that though the legitimate or illegitimate child attains majority and by reason of any physical or mental abnormality, unable to maintain itself, then only the child who attained majority is entitled for maintenance. Therefore, Section 125 (1) (c) makes it very clear that it would apply to the children who attained majority, in case of any deformity or any other injury which disable them to maintain themselves but not otherwise. 6. The learned counsel for the second respondent relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Amarendra Kumar Paul v. Maya Paul & others[1] wherein it is held thus: (para 17) “In this case the direction has been issued to recover the amount of maintenance only for the period prior to the sons’ attaining majority and the daughters getting married and hence no interference with the impugned judgment, in this behalf, is called for. In any view of the matter, it, in our opinion, is not a fit case wherein we should exercise our discretionary jurisdiction even it be assumed that the execution case was filed only by the respondent.” No doubt, in the above decision, the Apex Court has confirmed the order of the trial Court, wherein the trial Court observed that daughters are entitled to maintenance till marriage. Even in the above decision, it is clearly held that once the children attained majority, the said provisions would cease to apply. Therefore, simply because the Apex Court confirmed the order of the trial Court, it does not mean that it is a ratio laid down. Therefore, the above decision would not come to the rescue of the second respondent. On the other hand, the decision laid down the law that any children who attained majority would cease to claim any maintenance. 7. In the case on hand, admittedly, the second respondent attained majority. It is not a case where the second respondent was suffering from any deformity or otherwise incapable of maintaining herself because of any physical or mental abnormality or injury. Hence, she is not entitled for maintenance. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside insofar as granting maintenance to the second respondent, who is daughter of the petitioner and who attained majority, is concerned. Insofar as the first respondent is concerned, the courts below rightly enhanced the maintenance and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 8. The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, partly allowed. ----------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 05.08.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1887 of 2009 Date: 5.8.2010 Between: K.Prarkash …Petitioner And K.Shoba & others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1887 of 2009 5.8.2010 [1] (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 359