1. Heard Shri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and Shri Rohit Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
2. This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 30.07.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 280 of 2023; Kumari Neha Pandey vs. Anurag Pandey under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code (here-in-after referred as CrPC) by Principal Judge, Family Court, District Sultanpur.
3. The sole argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist is that the respondent no. 2 is major in age and it was disclosed in the application under Section 125 CrPC itself, therefore, the maintenance could not have been allowed in the proceeding(s) under Section 125 CrPC and if the court was of the view that a major daughter can claim maintenance under Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the proceedings could have been converted and after trial as a civil suit in accordance with law, the order could have been passed. He further submits that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Abhilasha vs. Parkash and others; (2021) 13 SCC 99, has wrongly and illegally been interpreted by the trial court. Thus, the submission is that the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside and the revision is liable to be allowed.