[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mohammed Abuzar S/O. Mohammed Argul ... vs Mohammed Arzul Kamar S/O. Shaikh Israil on 6 February, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:2125
1 3.REVN.26-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 26 OF 2024
Mohammed Abuzar s/o Mohammed
Argul Kamar,
Aged 20 years, Occ. Student,
R/o C/o Mrs. Shagufta Yasmin w/o
Mohd Arzul Kamar, Near Masjid,
Naya Nakasha, Lashkaribagh,
Nagpur. APPLICANT
Versus
Mohammed Arzul Kamar s/o Shaikh,
Israil,
Aged 56 years, Occ. Business,
R/o Plot No.49, Near Budha Vihar,
Vaishali Nagar, Nagpur. NON-APPLICANT
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. A.S. Pande, Advocate a/w Mr. A.M. Jaltare, Advocate for the
Applicant.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 06th FEBRUARY, 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant.
2. Despite the service of notice none appears for the
Non-applicant.
2 3.REVN.26-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
3. The present Revision is preferred by the Applicant
under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Nagpur
rejecting the Application of the present Applicant for grant of
maintenance from the Non-applicant who is the father dated
24.08.2023 below Exhs. 1 and 11.
4. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of
the Revision are as under:
4(i). The Non-applicant is the father of the Applicant as
his marriage with the mother of the Applicant was solemnized
on 02.06.2002 at Nagpur as per the Mohammedan rites, custom
and tradition. Since marriage the behavior of the Non-applicant
with the mother of the Applicant was not good more
particularly since the year 2004 to 2008 and there used to be
frequent quarrel between them which constrained the mother of
the present Applicant to leave the matrimonial house and take
the shelter at her parents house.
4(ii). The Applicant was born to the Non-applicant from
the said wedlock. The mother of the Applicant is Teacher and
since beginning she was incurring the expenses towards the
3 3.REVN.26-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
maintenance of the present Applicant as well as his education
and his day to day expenses. She has also taken all care of the
Applicant but as of now the Applicant is taking the higher
education, she is unable to incur the expenses, and therefore,
the present Applicant is deprived from the education. Therefore,
he has preferred an application for grant of maintenance from
the present Non-applicant.
4(iii). By preferring this Application, the
Applicant/Petitioner has prayed before the Family Court to
direct the Respondent/Non-applicant to pay maintenance Rs.
20,000/- per month to the Petitioner for his basic necessity,
needs, livelihood and educational purpose.
4(iv). On taking cognizance of the said Petition, the notice
was issued to the Respondent and the Respondent has filed an
application below Exh. 11 contending that now the Petitioner is
19 years old and the Petition is not maintainable. The learned
Family Court after hearing both the sides came to the conclusion
that now the Petitioner is not the minor child. Therefore, he is
not covered by Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and therefore, the Petition
is not maintainable and rejected the application.
4 3.REVN.26-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
4(v). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same the
present Applicant has preferred this Revision on the ground
that, the Family Court has lost sight of the fact that though the
Petitioner has attained the age of majority but he is taking
education and still dependent on his parents. The Family Court
has also not considered that now in view of the amended
provisions of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in Section 144
the word 'minor' is removed and the amendment is that the
children who are dependent upon the parents are also covered
by that.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant, who
submitted that, though the Applicant has attained the age of
majority but still he is taking education and he is jobless and
unless and until he completes his education it is difficult for him
to maintain himself and his mother who is serving as a Teacher.
She is also unable to maintain the present Applicant by
incurring the expenses towards his education as well as his day
to day needs. In view of that, the present Revision Application
deserves to be allowed.
5 3.REVN.26-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
6. As already observed that despite the service of
notice none appears for the Non-applicant.
7. On perusal of the Petition filed by the Petitioner
before the Family Court Nagpur, reply filed by the Respondent
before the Family Court, Nagpur and the impugned order
passed, admittedly the Petitioner is of 19 years of age and has
attained the age of majority. It is also admitted position that, he
is taking the education and intending to take admission for
pharmaceutical course. Thus, it is an undisputed fact that he is
not an earning member as he is jobless and he is taking
education.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zahir
Abdullah & Anr. Vs. Omar Abdullah, 2023 SCC OnLine Del
5341, has considered in para 21 regarding the principle
underlined under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which reads as under:
"21. The principle underlying Section 125 Cr.P.C. is that it is
in furtherance of social justice and has been enacted to
ensure that women and children remain protected from a life
of destitution and potential vagrancy. The object of
maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his
past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those
who can provide support to those who are unable to support
themselves and who have a moral claim for support. This
was observed concisely by the Supreme Court in Chaturbhu
vs. Sita bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316, where it stated as follows:
6 3.REVN.26-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
6. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to
punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent
vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support
to those who are unable to support themselves and who
have a moral claim to support. The phrase "unable to
maintain herself" in the instant case would mean that
means available to the deserted wife while she was
living with her husband and would not take within itself
the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive
somehow. Section 125 of CrPC is a measure of social
justice and is specially enacted to protect women and
children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh
Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70
falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3)
reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is
meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to
prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy
remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to
the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights
and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife,
children and parents when they are unable to maintain
themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in
Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat, (2005)
3 SCC 636."
9. Thus, the very purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is also
to protect the children from want of roof, food, clothing and
necessities of life. Education is an important aspect in children's
life. Amounts need to be spent for it. Those expenses are
educational expenses. Every father is under obligation to
provide a good education to his children. No father is expected
to produce a criminal or a disorderly person. Thus, he has to
bear the educational expenses of his children. Children have to
maintain their education by meeting the educational expenses.
Even a man on the pavement will be dreaming of his children
7 3.REVN.26-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
becoming a qualified person in life. Therefore, the obligation of
a father to maintain, to meet the educational expenses of his
children cannot excluded for the component of maintenance.
Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not only for food for life, it should also be
for food for thought. Otherwise, so far as the children are
concerned, it would be violence to the very object of Section
125 Cr.P.C.
10. The context of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that
the wife and the children of the husband are not left in a state
of destitution after they parted from each other. The husband
must also carry the financial burden of making certain that his
children are capable of getting food shelter as well as the
education and they should have sufficient means to maintain
themselves. The mother cannot be burdened with the entire
expenditure on the education of her son just because he has
completed 18 years of age, and the father cannot be absolved of
all responsibilities to meet the education expenses of his son
because the son may have attained the age of majority, but may
not be financially independent and could be incapable of
sustaining himself. A father is bound to compensate the wife
8 3.REVN.26-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
who, after spending on children, may hardly be left with
anything to maintain herself.
11. This aspect is recently considered by the Madras
High Court in the case of R. Alagarsamy Vs. M. Logambal &
Ors., in Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 140/2025 & Crl. M.P. (MD) No.
1486/2025, wherein the Hon'ble Madras High Court by
considering various decisions including Zahir Abdullah & Anr.
(supra) and also compared the two provisions i.e. 125 of Cr.P.C.
and Section144 of BNSS and observed that, Section 144 of the
BNSS, which replaces Section 125 of the CrPC, introduces a
major shift in maintenance law. By omitting the word 'minor',
the provision now extends the right to maintenance to adult
children who are unable to support themselves. This expansion
is significant, as previously only minor children could claim
maintenance. Now, a child who has attained majority can also
claim maintenance from their father if they are unable to
maintain themselves. The Legislature's omission of the word
'minor' in Section 144(1)(b) of the BNSS allows legitimate or
illegitimate children, regardless of age, to approach the courts
for maintenance if they are unable to support themselves,
9 3.REVN.26-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
subject to the father's refusal or neglect to maintain despite
having sufficient means.
12. In light of this, the impugned order rejecting the
applications of the present Applicant without giving the
opportunity to adduce the evidence, is illegal and in view of
that, the present Revision Application deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
i. Criminal Revision Application is allowed.
ii. The Petition No. E.-634/2022 is remanded back to
the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur for further
consideration and to dispose it on merits.
iii. The parties to appear before the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Nagpur on 16.02.2026.
13. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
S.D.Bhimte
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/02/2026 18:04:05
