1. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court.

2. It is most unfortunate that the educated sons i.e. lecturer and driver have filed the present revision petition against the order dated 09.02.2017 made in Crl. Misc. No. 90/2015 on the file of the District Judge, Family Court, Kalaburagi allowing the petition filed by the respondent-petitioner, who is the father of the present petitioners-respondents, directing to pay maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month by respondent No. 1 and Rs. 2,500/- per month by respondent No. 2 from the date of the petition.

3. The present respondent, who is the father of the petitioners aged about 67 years filed a claim petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Family Court against his two sons for grant of maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- per month. It is the specific case of the father that he was working in the KSRTC Department as a driver. He has given education to his sons and also provided them job. He has retired from service in the year 2008 and getting monthly pension of Rs. 1,951/-. He is residing in a rented house at Shakti Nagar, Shahabad road, Kalaburagi along with his wife and son, who are unsound mind. He is paying rent of Rs. 2,000/- per month. He is suffering from heart, B.P. and sugar diseases. He has taken loan of Rs. 15,000/- from his friends for his treatment. Hence, he is unable to maintain himself, his wife and son who are unsounded mind.

4. It is further case of the petitioner that respondent No. 1 is a lecturer in Mechanical Engineering and he is getting salary of Rs. 90,000/- per month. Respondent No. 2 is a conductor in KSRTC and his salary is Rs. 20,000/- per month and his wife is also a Government Teacher with salary of Rs. 25,000/- per month. The respondents are not maintaining their parents and residing separately. It is further case of the petitioner when, he has requested the respondents to maintain himself, his wife and son, they have refused and assaulted him on two or three occasions. In the month of April, 2015 a panchayat was held in the presence of elders and the respondents were advised to maintain the petitioner, his wife and son who are unsound mind but they have refused the same. Hence, he filed the petition seeking maintenance from the respondents-sons.

5. The respondents have filed counter to the main petition and admitted that the petitioner is having three children who are respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and one Uma Shankar. It is admitted that the petitioner is a retired KSRTC Driver. They denied that their father has provided good education and job. It is also denied that their father was getting pension of Rs. 1,951/- per month and he is residing in rented house by paying rent of Rs. 2,000/- per month. They also denied that their father was suffering from B.P. Sugar and suffered heart attack and borrowed a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from his friends. It is admitted that respondent No. 1 is working as Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering, but denied that he is getting salary of Rs. 90,000/- per month etc. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.

6. The Family Court based on the pleadings framed the following points for determination as under:

1. Whether petitioner proves that the respondents have sufficient income and neglected to maintain the petitioner?

2. What Order?

7. In order to establish his case, the present respondent who is petitioner before the Family Court examined himself as PW-1 and respondent No. 2 examined himself as DW-1 and marked documents at Ex.D-1 to D-6. Memo is filed by respondent No. 1 to adopt the evidence of respondent No. 2.

8. The Family Court considering the entire material on record, recorded a finding that the petitioner has proved that the respondents are having sufficient income and have neglected to maintain the petitioner and petitioner is entitled to maintenance. Accordingly by the impugned order dated 09.02.2017 directed respondent No. 1 to pay maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month a