IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.159 of 2007 LAXMI NARAYAN DAS Versus NILAM DEVI & ANR ----------- 2. 14.8.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court when the petitioner does not question the award of maintenance to his wife nor does he question the parentage of his son, the only plea for questioning part of the order granting Rs. 300/- by way of maintenance for the son on the ground that he had become major on the date of passing of the order in the opinion of this Court cannot be accepted because what has to be taken into consideration is that once such a plea was taken by the petitioner it was for him to establish from the record that his son had already become a major on the date of filing of the application. The explanation of the petitioner by referring to and relying on the evidence of the wife, opposite party to the effect that her son was aged about 18-19 years, should be a clinching evidence with regard to the son of the petitioner being major in the considered opinion of this Court is a far-fetched conclusion. The aforesaid son was admittedly born out of the marriage with the petitioner and therefore it was for him to disclose and prove the exact date 2 of birth of his son. The petitioner however failed to do so and in fact even having failed to raise the aforesaid question before the court below can not be permitted to press this pure question of facts before this Court in this civil revision application. This however, would not stand in the way of the petitioner in approaching the court below for modification of the impugned order in terms of section 127 of Code of criminal Procedure on the ground that his son has now become major and he is as such no longer, not entitled for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It however goes without saying that any modification u/s 127 Cr.P.C. would be given only a prospective effect and would not absolve the petitioner from making payment of arrears and current amount of maintenance in terms of the impugned order. With the aforesaid observations, the application being wholly misconceived is hereby dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/