GOKUL BEHARI NAIK Vs. PANTISH KUMAR NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision peti tion has been filed by the petitioner against the order of the revisional court directing him to pay maintenance of Rs. 200.00 per month to his adopted son, the opposite party here.

(2.) Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the adopted son is not included in the definition and is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr. PC. The learned counsel, for this relies on the principles laid down in AIR 1937 Rangoon 370 : (1938 (39) Cri LJ 14) (Ma E Mya v. U Ko Ko Gyi) and AIR 1937 Madras 547 : (1937 (38) Cri LJ 602) Nanu Nair v. Puthan Veettil Karthyayini Amma). The second submission of the learned counsel is that the trial Magistrate has rightly held that since the adoption of the opposite party was under challenge in a civil suit, he should file the petition for maintenance after that civil suit is decided. Thirdly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the age of the opposite party was above 18 years and, therefore, he was not entitled to maintenance. The last submission of the learned counsel is that there is no basis for granting Rs. 200.00 as the monthly maintenance and it is excessive.

(3.) Learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently opposes the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the order passed by the revisional court by saying that no perversity or illegality has been committed by the revisional court in reversing the order passed by the trial Magistrate.