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, h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document