APHC010222492019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] SATURDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 831/2019 Between: 1. MAMILLAPALLI SAROJINI DEVI, S/O. RAYAPPA RAJU, OCC HOUSEHOLD, R/O. GROUNDS FLOOR, ANUPAMA APARTMENTS, LAYOLA GARDENS, IV CROSS ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DIST. 2. MAMILLAPALLI KARTHIK, S/O. RAYAPPA RAJU, OCC STUDENT, R/O. GROUNDS FLOOR, ANUPAMA APARTMENTS, LAYOLA GARDENS, IV CROSS ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DIST. (2ND PETITIONER BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E. 1ST PETITIONER.) ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. MAMILLAPALLI RAYAPPA RAJU, S/O. VITTAL RAO, OCC GOVERNMENT TEACHER, DOOR NO 26-32-7/2, CHAITANYA NAGAR, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PILLUTLA SAI AVINASH 2. C N MOORTY 2 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. GAJJALA MALLIKARJUNA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, who is appointed as a Legal-Aid Counsel. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.2/State. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/Legal-Aid Counsel. 2. The learned trial Court in F.C.O.P.No.1237 of 2011 &F.C.O.P.No.1011 of 2012vide common Order dated 27.02.2018, granted maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.4,000/- per month to the petitioner No.2. 3. The F.C.O.P.No.1237 of 2011 was filed by the husband/respondent No.1, seeking for dissolution of the marriage between him and his wife/petitioner No.1, under Section 10(1)(x) of Divorce Act. The F.C.O.P.No.1011 of 2012 was filed by the wife and also by the minor son against respondent No.1/husband, seeking for grant of maintenance Rs.10,000/- per month, under Section 125 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ 4. The learned Trial Court having heard the matters together, passed a Common Order, granting divorce to the petitioner No.1/wife and the respondent No.1/husband by dissolving the marriage between them, which was solemnized on 12.05.1999, on the ground of cruelty. The F.C.O.P.No.1011 of 2012 was partly allowed holding that interim maintenance 3 was already granted to the petitioners, as per the Order in M.P.No.135 of 2013, dated 04.03.2014,holdsgood and the respondent No.1 shall continue to pay the same, till petitioner No.2 attains majority. 5. The relation between petitioners and respondent No.1 is not in dispute. The respondent No.1/husband is working as a Government Teacher. The learned Trial Court has granted Rs.6,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.4,000/- to the petitioner No.2. Admittedly, the petitioner No.2 has become major now. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Abhilasha v. Parkash1, a case relied on by the counsel for petitioner, at Para No.9 held as under: “9.The question to be answered in the present case is as to whether a Hindu unmarried daughter is entitled to claim maintenance from her father under Section 125 Cr.P.C. only till she attains majority or she can claim maintenance till she remains unmarried. Section 125(1) Cr.P.C., which is relevant for the present case is as follows: "125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain- (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain Itself, or (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself "” 7. It is observed that the right of a female Hindu for maintenance from parents after attaining majority till her marriage is recognized under Section 23 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and there is no inconsistency between Section 1 (2021) 13 SCC 99 4 125 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and Section 23 of Hindu Marriage Act. In the instant case, the petitioner No.2 is a major son. Even as per the Section 125 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ a major son, if he is not either physically or mentally challenged he is not entitled for maintenance. The petitioner being a Government Teacher, his salary would have been enhanced from every period of pay recommendation. The Order was passed on 27.02.2018, by this time, there must have been one pay revision recommending enhancement of pay of the respondent No.1/husband, as Government Teacher. 8. Therefore, an amount of Rs.6,000/- for petitioner No.1, towards maintenance is inadequate, it has to be enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner No.2 has already attained majority. He is not entitled for grant of maintenance inasmuch as it is not averred, proved and established that he is otherwise disabled. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed enhancing the maintenance for petitioner No.1/wife from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.10,000/- while restricting the maintenance granted to the petitioner No.2 till he attains majority. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 20.12.2025 CVD