1 12-wp-484-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 484 OF 2026 Govind Chintaman Mande Versus Master Parth Govind Mande and another Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Shri C.B.Bailmare, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Manish S. Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATED : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026. The petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 14.10.2025 passed below Exhibit 6 by the learned Family Court No.4, Nagpur in Petition No. E-44/2023 by which the interim maintenance application filed on behalf of the respondents through their mother/natural guardian claiming of the maintenance for the children under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’), came to be allowed. 2. Shri Bailmare, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that application filed under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter SKNair 2026:BHC-NAG:13152 2 12-wp-484-26.odt referred as ‘D.V.Act’) is also allowed thereby granting maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent no.2 Saanvi (minor daughter of the petitioner and his wife) vide order dated 02.04.2025 passed by learned Special Court under D.V.Act. The said fact was not considered by the learned Family Court while allowing the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 3. Shri Bailmare, learned counsel for the applicant further submits that son of the present petitioner i.e. respondent no.1 is major and therefore is not entitled for maintenance as per the provisions under Section 125(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. The birth certificate shows the date of birth of respondent no.1 (major child) is 17.02.2004 and therefore, the respondent no.1 has attained the majority and is now presently aged 22 years. The direction to provide maintenance to the respondent no.1 (major child) is therefore illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside. He further relied upon the judgment of High Court of Karnataka in the case of Mallayya Vs. Smt. Mahadevi and another reported in 2008 SCC OnLine Kar 279 and submit that a child who has attained majority is not entitled to maintenance unless there is correction in the legislation. SKNair 3 12-wp-484-26.odt 4. He further submits that wife is also serving as a nurse in a Government Hospital and she is drawing a salary of around Rs.1,20,000/-. However, she filed a false salary certificate showing that she is earning Rs.60,000/- as a salary. An appropriate application for taking action under Section 340 of Cr.P.C is filed before the learned Special Court under DV Act which is pending for consideration. The learned Family Court without taking into consideration the salary drawn by the mother/natural guardian of respondents and also ignoring the fact that the learned Special Court under DV Act has also directed to pay interim maintenance for the child Saanvi respondent no.2 herein at the rate of Rs.15000/- per month has now directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- each to both the respondents herein. The impugned order is illegal and without application of mind and without considering the income, assets and liabilities of both the petitioner and his wife (mother of the respondents), hence, liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the petition on the ground that petitioner challenges only the order of interim maintenance application filed under SKNair 4 12-wp-484-26.odt Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The main application is yet to be decided. The petitioner is working in the Zilla Parishad as a class-III employee and he is earning a salary of more than Rs. 75,000/-. However, taking into consideration the expenses required to meet the educational needs of Respondent No. 1, the learned Trial Court has granted maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to each of the respondents. The said amount is reasonable one with their needs. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly granted maintenance to the respondents. The learned Family Court has also taken into consideration that the respondent no.1 had attained majority. However, relying upon the judgment of Urvashi Aggarwal Vs. Inderpaul Aggarwal, reported in AIR Online 2021 DEL 806, learned Family Court has come to the conclusion that despite the respondent no.1 attaining majority, he is unable to maintain himself and is pursuing education as such Rs.10,000/- is rightly granted. The petitioner has neither paid amount of Rs.15,000/- as directed by the Special Court under the D.V.Act nor has paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- each maintenance granted vide the impugned order. The mother of the respondent-wife has restricted her claim in the execution proceedings only to the maintenance payable to respondent No. 1. Insofar as SKNair 5 12-wp-484-26.odt respondent No. 2 is concerned, she would pursue the order of maintenance granted in her favour only under the provisions of the D.V.Act by the learned Special Court. The learned Family Court has also taken into consideration both the income, assets and liabilities of the petitioner as well as his wife (mother of the respondents) and has therefore come to the conclusion that amount of Rs.10,000/- each to both the respondents would be a reasonable amount for interim maintenance, particularly when the respondent no.1 is taking education in the Fire Engineering College and the wife is alone bearing the entire expenditure. Thus, taking into consideration the reasoning given by the learned Family Court, no case is made out for interference of this Court and petition may be dismissed. 6. I have gone through the order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the learned Special Court under the DV Act and I have also gone through the order dated 14.10.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Nagpur. The perusal of the judgment in the case of Mallayya Vs. Smt. Mahadevi and another (supra) relied upon by the petitioner herein shows that the High Court of Karnataka has taken a view that unless there is a change in the legislation, a child who has attained majority may SKNair 6 12-wp-484-26.odt not be entitled to maintenance. However, the Delhi High Court in the case of Urvashi Aggarwal Vs. Inderpaul Aggarwal, reported in AIR Online 2021 DEL 806, has observed that the Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that at the age of 18, the education of the children are not over and they are not able to maintain themselves. The provisions of Section 125(1)(b) and (c) of Cr.P.C. would show that the child means upto the age of attaining majority but the same is qualified by the words “unable to maintain himself or herself”. Though, the respondent no.1 has attained majority, he is still pursuing his education in the Fire Engineering College and is unable to maintain himself. This fact is considered by the learned Family Court while granting interim order of maintenance and the main application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is still pending before the learned Family Court Nagpur. The application filed by the husband for taking action under Section 340 of Cr.P.C is also pending before the learned Special Court under DV Act. Since, the impugned order of interim maintenance is passed on the basis of prima facie consideration of the income, assets and liabilities of both the petitioner as well as his wife (mother of the respondents), I see no error committed by the learned Family Court in granting interim order of SKNair 7 12-wp-484-26.odt maintenance of Rs.10,000/- each to both the respondents. Thus, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference of this Court under its extra ordinary jurisdiction and pass the following order. ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed. ii. The amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- paid by the petitioner to the respondents shall be adjusted towards the arrears of maintenance. [MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.] SKNair Signed by: Mr. S.K. NAIR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 05/10/2026 17:58:27