A person must have sufficient means under Section 125 Cr.P.C to be obligated to pay maintenance, which the elderly respondent lacked.

ORDER :

J.M. Khazi, J.

In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, petitioner who is respondent before the trial Court, has challenged the order granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- in favour of his wife and enhancing the maintenance from Rs.300/- to Rs.1,500/- p.m, in favour of his unmarried daughter by the District Court.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

3. In support of the petition, respondent has contended that petitioner No.1 is his second wife. She is an Anganawadi worker and getting salary of Rs.4,000/- p.m. Now it is enhanced to Rs.5,000/- p.m. Respondent is a retired employee of KR Mills. He was granted a site by the government. Out of the benefits received from his retirement he has constructed a house. Petitioner No.1 is residing in the said house and she is capable of earning.

4. Petitioner No.2 is physically handicap. She is getting Rs.1,000/- from the Government, which is now enhanced to Rs.3,000/-. Therefore she also not entitled for any maintenance. Respondent is under the care of his first wife. The first wife and her grownup children are taking care of the respondent. The daughter of respondent through his first wife had to pledged her gold ornaments to pay Rs.10,000/- to the petitioners to get him released from custody.

5. Respondent is aged 85 years. He is not in a position to work and earn. He is using walking stick to move around. He is not able to sit while consuming food. He is also requires assistance for attending to his personal work including attending to the natures calls. He is also not having any income generating properties. After taking his property and when he is no longer able to earn petitioners have ousted him from the house. In the light of the same, the District Court has erred in directing him to pay maintenance to the petitioners. When respondent is not having any income and also not in a position to earn, the District Court has erred passing the impugned order and hence the petition.

6. On the other hand learned counsel representing petitioners would submit that petitioners are the legally wedded wife and daughter of Respondent. Petitioner No.2 is physically handicap. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent was registered. They led happy married life for 21 years. They are also having a son. Since about 10 years prior to the filing of the petition respondent developed bad habits. He failed and neglected to maintain them. Petitioners are not able to maintain themselves.

7. The statement of objections filed by respondent is inconformity with grounds urged in the present petition.

8. Before the trial Court four witnesses were examined as PW1 to 4 and EX.P1 and 2 were marked on behalf of the petitioner.

9. Respondent has not led any oral evidence but got marked Ex.R1.

10. The trial Court partly allowed the petition, granting maintenance to petitioner No.2 @ Rs.300/- pm. from the date of order.

11. It dismiss the petitioner insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned.

12. Respondent did not challenge the order of the trial Court. Therefore, the order of the trial Court granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.300/- to petitioner No.2 has attained finality.

13. However, petitioners approached the District Court in Crl.R.P.No.182/2010. It came to be allowed granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- pm to petitioner No.1 and enhanced maintenance payable to petitioner No.2 to Rs.1,500/-

14. It is being challenged by respondent in the present petition.

15. Heard arguments and perused the record.

16. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute, even thoug