{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3333 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.204 OF 2005 Santaram s/o Bajirao Pawar APPLICANT VERSUS Sau Suryakalabai w/o Santaram Pawar & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mrs. M.D.Thube-Mhase, Advocate for applicant Mrs. Y.M.Kshirsagar, APP for respondent State Mr.A.I.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 10th March 2010 ORAL ORDER: 1. By this application the applicant has prayed for modification of the order dated 19.09.2005 to the extent of respondent No.2 and requested that the applicant be exempted from paying maintenance to respondent No.2 as he has attained age of majority during the pendency of the criminal revision application. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of the {2} parties heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the present case can be summarized thus- Admittedly, respondent No.1 is the wife of the applicant and respondents No.2 and 3 are their sons. It appears that a compromise was arrived at between applicant and respondent No.1 in respect of payment of maintenance to the respondents. On 26.06.2004 an application bearing M.A. No.78/2004 was moved by the respondents before the Family Court, Aurangabad for enhancement of the agreed maintenance. The said application was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 10.05.2005 and the maintenance agreed to pay was enhanced from Rs.600/- to Rs. 1000/- to respondent No.1 and from Rs.500/- to Rs.750/- to respondents No.2 and 3. The order of enhancement of maintenance is impugned by the applicant by filing Criminal Revision Application No.204/2005. On 19.09.2005, an interim order came to be passed in the said revision thereby staying the operation of the judgment and order dated 10.05.2005 passed by the Family Court, Aurangabad and it was directed to the applicant to pay maintenance @ Rs.800/- to respondent No.1 and @ Rs.500/- to respondents No.2 and 3, till disposal of the criminal revision application. It further appears that vide order dated 13.03.2006, the revision came to be admitted and the interim order dated 19.09.2005 is directed to be continued. {3} 4. Now, respondent No.2 has attained age of majority. To point out that the respondent No.2 has attained majority, the applicant has produced zerox copy of the school leaving certificate. The same is taken on record and marked as “X” for identification. The fact that at the material time respondent No.2 was taking education in the said school is not disputed. The date of birth of respondent No.2, as mentioned in the school leaving certificate, is 7th January 1991. Thus, respondent No.2 has attained majority on 7th January 2009. The application was filed before the Family Court for enhancement of the maintenance under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, as the earlier maintenance was awarded u/s 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and was enhanced as per the provisions of section 127. As per the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant is liable to pay maintenance to minor sons and not to the major sons. In view of this fact, during the pendency of the revision application, present application is moved for modification of the order. It is made clear that the applicant has already deposited an amount of interim maintenance payable to all the respondents till February 2010. 5. The only submission is that during the pendency of the criminal revision application as respondent No.2 has attained age of majority, the applicant be exempted from paying maintenance to respondent No.2, since the date he has attained {4} majority. Learned counsel for applicant has fairly stated that though the applicant has deposited the amount of interim maintenance payable to all the respondents till February 2010 and respondent No.2 has attained majority in January 2009, yet the order of exemption of applicant from paying interim maintenance to respondent No.2 be made effective from the date of the order. 6. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3, has urged that as the maintenance was decided by the Family Court, this Application is not maintainable before this Court and it ought to have been preferred before the Family Court. Learned APP submits that the application be decided in accordance with law. 8. It is not disputed that son is entitled for maintenance under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code till he attains majority and not thereafter. It is also not disputed that the order was passed by the Family Court, Aurangabad in M.A. No.78/2004, which was filed for enhancement of maintenance, on 10.05.2005 and the same is challenged in criminal revision application No. 204/2005 and hence now the Family Court is ceased with the maintenance application and the matter is subjudice before this Court. In the premise, there is no substance in the submissions of learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 that the application for modification of the order of interim maintenance to be made before the Family Court. Therefore, the application is maintainable before this Court only. As per the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, {5} son is not entitled for maintenance after attaining majority, however he may be entitled for maintenance under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act. At this stage, this Court need not enter in that controversy. However, as respondent No.2 has attained the age of majority during the pendency of the criminal revision application, the interim order dated 19.09.2005 requires to be modified. 9. In the result, the application succeeds. The applicant is exempted from payment of maintenance to respondent No.2 henceforth. 10. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above. Parties are at liberty to move for early hearing of the revision application No.204/2005. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln3333-09