HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1893 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Satish Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the record. 2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2014 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.3, Ghaziabad, in Criminal Case No. 962 of 2022 (Samiksha Vs. Tarun), under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, whereby the objection of the revisionist 14-B has been rejected and the revisionist was directed to pay the entire amount to the opposite party no.2-Samiksha, failing which, recovery proceedings shall be initiated against him, in accordance to law. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that Smt. Anju, the mother of the opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, claiming maintenance of her minor daughter (opposite party no.2 herein) in the year 2009, which was numbered as Case No. 77 of 2009 (Smt. Anju Vs. Tarun), Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad. The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, Ghaziabad. Both parties appeared there and by their mutual consent/settlement dated 19.04.2017 the matter was compromised between the parties. In the said settlement, it was agreed that the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to opposite party no.2-Samiksha till she attains the age of majority and further the revisionist will deposit Rs.2500/- per month for the purposes of marriage, till the marriage of opposite party no.2 is Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Satish Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashok Kumar Yadav, G.A. Tarun .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) solemnized. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist mainly argued that Case No.77 of 2009 (Smt. Anju Vs. Tarun) was filed before the trial court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance against the revisionist, which was later decided on the basis of the compromise under the following terms and conditions through mutual consent (i) revisionist shall pay Rs.5000/- per month to the opposite party no.2-Samiksha and further for the purposes of her marriage the revisionist shall further pay Rs.2500/- per month in the name of Samiksha (opposite party no.2). The compromise is on record at page no.33 of the paper book. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that thereafter Samiksha lived in Australia through her maternal grandfather and filed Case No.962 of 2022 (Samiksha Vs. Tarun) and prayed that opposite party no.2 (revisionist herein) be directed to pay Rs.45,000/- alleging therein that her mother Anju had filed Case No.77 of 2009, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was later disposed of by the trial court vide order dated 22.04.2017 on the basis of compromise and at the time of filing of the said application she was minor and her date of birth is recorded as 22.08.2003, according to which, she became major, hence she is not entitled to get any maintenance under Section 125(1)(c) Cr.P.C. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 fairly conceded that now the opposite party no.2 has attained the age of majority, therefore, as per provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. she cannot claim maintenance from her parents. 7. From perusal of the record, it reflects that vide case no. 962 of 2022, the opposite party no.2 has claimed the arrears of maintenance amount from July, 2022 to December, 2022 but according to her own admission, her date of birth is 22.08.2003, therefore, she attained the age of majority on 21.08.2021 itself, in such circumstance, according to the provisions of Section 125(1)(c) of the Code, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance and if she is still unemployed and requires maintenance, then she will have to take the shelter of the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 for claiming from her parents. Section 20(3) of the Act reads as follows: Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 "(1) ......... CRLR No. 1893 of 2024 2 (2) ........ (3) The obligation of a person to maintain his or her aged or infirm parent or daughter who is unmarried extends insofar as the parent or the unmarried daughter, as the case may be, is unable to maintain himself or herself out of his or her own earnings or other property." 8. In view of above, the instant revision deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly, allowed. The order impugned dated 11.01.2014 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.3, Ghaziabad, in Criminal Case No. 962 of 2022 (Samiksha Vs. Tarun), under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, is set aside. 9. However, the opposite party no.2 would be at liberty to approach the trial court, if she so desires, seeking maintenance under the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. September 18, 2025 Prajapati RK CRLR No. 1893 of 2024 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad