JUDGMENT - B.B. VAGYANI, J.:--- Heard learned Advocate Shri. R.N. Borulkar for the petitioner and learned Advocate Shri Darak for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The petitioner herein lingers, under a false hope, in the corridors of the High Court, that he would be absolved from the liability imposed by the Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, in the matter of payment of monthly allowance to his real mother, by way of maintenance.

3. The petitioner is the eldest son of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The daughter of the respondents is already married. Krishnakumar, another son of the respondents, is married and has got a job in Bajaj Auto Ltd., Aurangabad, Jagdishkumar, youngest son of the respondent, was taking education when petition for grant of maintenance under section 125 Cr. P.C. was filed by the respondent.

4. Respondent No. 1 (original petitioner No. 1) is an old lady. Respondent No. 2 (original petitioner No. 2) is aged pensioner. Respondent No. 2 gets meagre pension. The respondents have no source of income besides the pension of respondent No. 2. They are required to spend on the education of their youngest son. Respondent No. 2 is a patient of diabetes and spondylitis. Therefore, he is required to spend major chunk of his pension on his ailment. The remainder of pension is insufficient for maintenance of three persons.

5. The respondents filed Application No. 371/1995 under section 125 Cri.P.Code, 1973, against present petitioner for grant of maintenance. It is case of the respondents that the present petitioner is in the Government employment and gets inflated pay packet. The wife of the present petitioner is also earning hand and brings an attractive pay packet. The present petitioner has sufficient means. The petitioner has refused and neglected to maintain his aged parents who are unable to maintain themselves. The respondents, therefore, claim monthly allowance for their maintenance from their eldest son under section 125 (1)(d) of Cri.P.Code.

6. The present petitioner contested the application for grant of maintenance mainly on the ground that the respondent No. 2, being husband of respondent No. 1, is primarily responsible to maintain the respondent No. 1. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to get maintenance from the present petitioner. The respondent No. 2 has sufficient means to maintain himself and his wife and, therefore, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 cannot bring any action in the Court of law for grant of maintenance. The petitioner has further contended that the respondents have two more sons and one of them is earning substantial income. According to the petitioner, the respondents cannot pick and choose him for the purpose of claiming maintenance. Petitioner contends further that it is not his sole responsibility to maintain the respondents. The others sons are equally liable to maintain the respondents. The petitioner finally contends that the respondents did not discharge their parental duty properly when the present petitioner was a child. The grievance was made that the respondent did not care for the education of the petitioner. On this count also the respondents are not entitled to get maintenance.

7. Both the contesting parties led oral evidence in the Family Court. After hearing both the sides and taking into consideration the evidence brought on record, the Judge, Family Court, partly allowed the application filed by the respondents for maintenance and consequently, the present petitioner has been directed to pay monthly allowance of Rs. 200/- to the respondent mother by way of her maintenance from the date of order i.e. 14-7-1996. The claim of the father (respondent No. 2) has, however, been rejected by the Judge, Family Court, on the ground that he is able to maintain himself.

8. Feeling dissatisfied by the order of maintenance passed by the Judge, Family Court, petitioner (original respondent) has filed present criminal revision application.

9. Learned Advocate Shri R.N. Borulkar vehemently sub

Click Here to Read the rest of this document