MALLAYYA Vs. MAHADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein, who is the husband of the respondent No. 1 and father of the respondent No. 2, has challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 12. 6. 2006 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 22/2005 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bijapur, enhancing the maintenance payable by the petitioner herein to the respondent No. l from rs. 300/- to Rs. 1,000/- per month and from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 800/- per month to respondent No. 2.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case is as under:- (a) Respondent Nos. l and 2 respectively being the wife and son of the petitioner, filed maintenance petition in Crl. Misc. No. 37/1992 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First class, Basavana Bagewadi, District Bijapur. The said petition came to be allowed and a sum of Rs. 300/- per month and another sum of Rs. 200/- per month was awarded in favour of respondent nos. l and 2 respectively towards their maintenance. Thereafter, the respondents filed a petition under Section 127 of Cr. P. C. for enhancement of the said maintenance. After considering the legal contentions of the petitioner and respondents on the question of enhancement of maintenance, the Family Court, passed the impugned order, enhancing the maintenance from Rs. 300/- to rs. 1,000/- per month in favour of respondent No. l and Rs. 200/-to Rs. 800/- per month in favour of respondent No. 2. The correctness of the said order is challenged in this revision petition.

(3.) HEARD the arguments of the learned Counsels for both the parties. During the course of argument, Sri. Ashok Kalyanashetty, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he will restrict the revision petition insofar as the impugned order relates to the enhancement of maintenance from rs. 200/- to Rs. 800/- per month in favour of the 2nd respondent, who is admittedly a major son. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of C. Byraiah Vs. B. Anasuyaand others reported in 1999 (l)'kccr 128 and the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of K. Sivaram Vs. K. Mangalamba and others reported in 1990 Crl. L. J. 1880 and also the decision of Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of Noor Saha Khatoon Vs. Mohd. Quasim reported in AIR 1997 SC 3280 contended that as provided under Section 125 (l) (c) of Cr. P. C. , a son, after attaining majority, would not be entitled to claim any maintenance from his father.