JALALUDIN @ JALAL MOHAMMED Vs. SHAHIDA ANJUM & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.02.2009 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kota whereby the learned Judge has partly allowed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 127 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondent No.5 were married according to the Muslim rites and customs. During the wedlock, four children were born. Due to certain differences, the parties had separated. Subsequently, respondent No.5 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. On the basis of a compromise reached between the parties, vide order dated 08.11.1995, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.350/- per month for the maintenance to respondent No.1, Shahida Anjum, and to pay Rs.200/- per month for the maintenance to the respondent No.2, Shahid, the respondent No.3, Shabina and to the respondent No.4., Shamina @ Rubina. Subsequently, respondent No.5 moved an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for increasing the maintenance amount. Vide order dated 26.04.2001, the maintenance amount was increased. Again the respondent No.5 moved an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. praying for increasing in the maintenance amount. On the other hand, the petitioner also moved an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. wherein he claimed that the four children had become major during the interim period. Therefore, he is no longer liable to pay maintenance for them. According to him respondent No.1, Shahida Anjum was 28 year old, respondent No.2, Shahid was 24 years old, respondent No.3, Shabina was 19 year old and respondent No.4, Shamina @ Rubina was 17 year old. After consolidating both the applications and after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 10.02.2009, the learned Judge directed that no maintenance needs to be paid to Shahid, the son who had become major. But he increased the maintenance amount of respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Dileep Singh Jadaun, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that since the children had become major, they are disentitled from getting any maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.