JUDGMENT
K.L. Issrani, J.
1. Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of the revisional Court directing him to pay maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month to his adopted son, the opposite party here.
2. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the adopted son is not included in the definition and is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125, Cr PC. The learned counsel, for this, relies on the principles laid down in AIR 1937 Rangoon 370 (MaE Mya v. U Ko Ko Gyi) and AIR 1937 Madras 547 (Nanu Nair v. Puthan Veettil Karthyayiari Amma). The second submission of the learned counsel is that the trial Magistrate has rightly held that since the adoption of the opposite party was under challenge in a civil suit, ha should have filed the petition for maintenance after that civil suit Is decided. Thirdly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the age of the opposite party was above 18 Years and, therefore, he was not entitled to maintenance. The last submission of the learned counsel is that there is no basis for granting Rs. 200/- as the monthly maintenance and it is excessive.
3. Learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently opposes the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the order passed by the revisional Court by saying that no perversity or illegality has been committed by the revisional Court in reversing the order passed by the trial Magistrate.
4. It is an admitted position that the opposite party is an adopted son. He was adopted through the registered document dated 21-3-1990 marked Ext. 1 and in that document the age of the opposite party was written as 14 years. But. the trial Magistrate has calculated the age from appearance and also from the evidence of PW 2 ignoring the documentary evidence Ext. 2 which is the High School Certificate. Looking to the documentary evidence (Exts. 1 and 2), the revisional Court found that at the time of filing of the petition the opposite party was a minor and not a major The said finding is not perverse.
5. Now, it is to be seen whether the opposite party is an adopted son and entitled to maintenance or not. The rulings relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are before the coming into force of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 on 21st December, 1956 which overrides any other text or rule, or Act in this behalf. According to Section 16(iv) thereof, the age of adoption is 15 years, unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits persons, who have completed the age of fifteen years being taken in adoption. That means, if the custom or usage applicable to the parties permits, a person over the age of fifteen years can also be adopted. According to Section 15 of the said Act, no adoption which has been validity made can be cancelled by the adoptive father or any other parson, nor can be adopted child renounce his or her status as such and return to the family of his or her birth. Section 16 is regarding the presumption as to registered. documents relating to adoptions and Section 20 says that subject to the provisions of this section a Hindu is bound, during his or her life-time, to maintain his or her legitimate or illegitimate children and his or her aged or infirm parents. So, ‘son’ includes not only the adopted son but also the illegitimate son and the petitioner is duty bound to maintain the adopted son. Section 125, Cr PC, nowhere debars adopted son to claim maintenance. Even. the illegitimate child is entitled to claim maintenance. So also the adopted son is entitled to claim the same. The tact that the trial Magistrate did not consider in the application that the civil suit tiled by another so-called adopted son it pending claiming his own declaration and it could not debar the parents opposite party from claiming maintenance unless his adoption deed is cancelled by a decree of Court which is not the case here. Therefore, the revisional Court was right in reversing the order passed by the trial Magistrate.
6. Regarding the quantum of maintenance, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner admitted the income of Rs. 10,000/- per Year and not per month. If that be so the monthly Income of the petitioner of comes to about Rs. 833/’- it is divided by three urj &o. As admitted by the petitioner so as to maintain his wife and taking into consideration that the petitioner himself, his wife and the child are to be maintained with the amount of Rs. 833/-, it is divided by three which comes to Rs. 277/- per head per month. Hence, the amount of Rs. 200/- granted monthly maintenance by the revisional Court cannot be said to be abnormal. Therefore, no interteance in this revision petition is called for which is, accordingly, dismissed.