*1* 903revn342o25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 342 OF 2025 YUNUS DAGDU SHEIKH VERSUS AJIM YUNUS SHAIKH THROUGH HER MOTHER AHEMADA ALIAS RIZWANA YUNUS SHAIKH ... Shri Shaikh Md Aamir Abdul Qadir, Advocate for the Applicant. Advocate F.F. Shirpurkar h/f Advocate S.S. Kazi for the respondent. ... CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 03 September 2026 P. C. :- 1. The applicant is challenging the judgment and order dated 30.08.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Latur, in Petition No.E-146/2022 whereby, the applicant is directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to the respondent/ minor child, who is aged about 14 years. 2. The learned advocate for the applicant states that the mother of the respondent child was married to the applicant on 20.01.2011. In view of certain dispute between them, she had filed the application before the learned JMFC, Ausa, against the present applicant under the Protection of Women from Domestic 2026:BHC-AUG:40563 *2* 903revn342o25 Violence Act, 2005 for claiming maintenance for herself and child. During the pendency of the said matter, there was compromise between the parties in Lok-Adalat and in pursuance of the said compromise, the mother of the respondent child waived her right to claim future maintenance for herself and the respondent child. On the basis of the said compromise, the learned JMFC disposed of the application vide order dated 11.04.2015. 3. The learned advocate for the applicant further submits that thereafter, almost seven years have passed and the respondent child through his mother has filed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 27.09.2022 before the learned Family Court, Latur. According to the learned advocate, the wife has suppressed before the learned Family Court the fact that she had waived the right to claim maintenance. The said application u/s 125 was resisted by the present applicant by filing the reply. However, in the meantime, on 15.03.2024, the respondent child through mother filed interim application claiming maintenance of Rs.5000/- from the present applicant. The applicant herein also filed say to the said *3* 903revn342o25 application thereby, denying his liability to pay maintenance in view of the compromise took placed before the learned JMFC. However, the learned Family Court vide impugned order dated 30.08.2025 directed the present applicant to pay Rs.3000/- per month maintenance to the respondent child. 4. According to the learned advocate for the applicant, the impugned order is patently illegal. The wife has waived her right to claim maintenance for herself and for her child. Under the compromise, the wife has obtained custody of the child. Therefore, by filing the application belatedly after seven years, the respondent child is not entitled to claim maintenance. Learned advocate, therefore, submits that the impugned order be quashed and set aside by allowing the instant revision application. 5. Per contra, the learned advocate for the respondent submits that the learned Family Court, by way of interim maintenance, has directed the present applicant to pay Rs.3000/- per month towards maintenance of the respondent child. As of now, the respondent child is pursuing his education in 7th standard. In any case, the wife is not entitled to waive *4* 903revn342o25 maintenance on behalf of the child. According to the learned advocate, the right of waiving maintenance will be applicable in case of maintenance of wife and not the child. There is nothing wrong or error in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. Moreover, the child is facing hardship in order to meet day to day expenses, therefore, he is totally dependent upon maintenance being provided by the applicant. As such, learned advocate for the respondent prays that the instant revision being devoid of merit be dismissed. 6. After considering the rival submissions, it is clear that the learned Family Court, while passing the impugned order, has directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to the child. Admittedly, this Court is of the opinion that though there is compromise, however, the wife is not entitled to waive maintenance on behalf of the child. Since this is an interim arrangement, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant revision being devoid of merit. There is no error or perversity in the impugned order. As such, the Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. kps ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )