VASANT Vs. SANYOGITA VASANT PAWAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the respondents - children of the petitioner were granted maintenance of Rs. 200/ - per month each, by an order passed in the Criminal Application No. 630 of 1993, of which the enhancement was sought by the respondents -children by filing another application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which came to be allowed on 16/04/2001, whereby the present petitioner was directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 700/ - per month to present Nos. 2 and 3 from 07/09/1999 in stead of Rs. 200/ - per month. In Revision before the Sessions Court, by an order dated 24/12/2002 learned Sessions Judge upheld the order passed by learned Magistrate referred supra, as such present writ petition.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner made two -fold contentions; (a) that entitlement under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is only to the extent pertaining to the age of majority of the son and according to him, in the present case, applicant No. 1 Sandesh on the date of application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Code was of the age of 21 years and another son Sarvajit was of the age of 17 years, (b) daughter Sanyogita is also governed by the same principle i.e. availability of protection under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the date of attaining majority. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, daughter is entitled to the maintenance up to the date of her marriage. So as to substantiate his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Sau. Kamla w/o Samlaprasad Pal & Ors. v. Samlaprasad s/o Charanlal Pal reported in, 2005 ALL MR (Cri) 1958. He has invited attention of this Court to paragraphs 5 and 15 of the said judgment which reads thus :

(3.) MR . Kawade, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, appointed by this Court through High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Aurangabad, has urged that the law cited above depicts the correct position, however, according to him, daughter will be entitled to maintenance till date of her marriage and in the present case, there is no need to apply afresh under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, as the order passed under Sections 125/127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be extended till date of her marriage. He places reliance upon judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Jagdish Jugtawat v. Maju Lata reported in : (2002) 5 SCC 422.