Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 667
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR BENCH
A.B. Chaudhari, J.
Vasant – Appellant
Vs.
Govindrao Upasrao Naik and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Revision Application No. 172 of 2014
Decided On : 02-02-2016
For the Appellant :R.P. Khaparde, Advocate.
For the Respondent:S.P. Deshpande, Advocate.
The court established the obligation of a married daughter to maintain her parents and clarified the procedure for claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Jurisdictional Issue - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - 126 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The respondents, parents of the applicant, filed an application for maintenance against their son under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant denied the allegations and raised issues regarding territorial jurisdiction and non-joinder of other siblings. The Family Court made an order for maintenance, which was challenged in the revision application.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the applicant could not object to the territorial jurisdiction for the first time before the court. It also found that the married daughter was obligated to maintain her parents and that the other siblings were necessary parties to the application.
Issues: Territorial jurisdiction under Section 126 of the Cr.P.C., obligation of married daughter to maintain parents, and non-joinder of siblings as necessary parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 126 of the Cr.P.C. and held that the parents could claim maintenance from any of their children. It also relied on the decision in Dr. Mrs. Vijaya Arbat vs. Kashirao Sawaui to establish the obligation of a married daughter to maintain her parents. The court emphasized the need for all siblings to be joined as parties to the maintenance application.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment and order were quashed and set aside, and the proceedings were remitted to the Family Court for addition of the married daughter and younger son as parties and for a fresh trial within a year.
A.B. Chaudhari, J.
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.08.2014 in Petition No. E-35/2013 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Amravati, by which the applicant has been directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month each, totalling to Rs. 40,000/- from the date of filing of the Application i.e. 4.3.2013, to the father and mother of the applicant (original petitioners), the instant Revision has been filed.
FACTS:
2. The respondents herein, that is, applicants before the Family Court, Amravati - Govind and Mankarnabai, filed an Application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the present applicant-Vasant, their son, for grant of maintenance in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month each, from the applicant. In their Application, they stated that they are the parents of the present applicant and have been residing in the house of their daughter Rajani in Prabhu Colony, Amravati. The applicant-son Vasant is serving in a high position in Saudi Polydlefins Limited, a Company in Saudi Arabia and receiving an eye-popping salary in the sum of Rs. 3 lakhs per month. The applicant-Vasant is the elder son possessing qualification of M.Sc. in Petrochemicals. Daughter-Rajani is married and resides in United States of America (USA); while the younger son-Chandan is an unemployed youth, resides with non-applicants-father and mother. The non-applicants incurred huge expenses on the education of the children by selling 16 acres of land and purchased another three acres of land from the remaining amount. Till the marriage of the applicant-Vasant he was supporting the parents but after the marriage he stopped giving any monetary help and, on the contrary, tortured them, claiming an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs for booking of a flat at Mumbai, ill-treated and threatened them and, as such, they were required to obtain temporary injunction order from the Civil Court to prohibit applicant-Vasant from entering their house at Amravati, vide an order dated 1.10.2012. The non-applicants are facing severe economic crisis and resource crunch inasmuch as they are on the verge of starvation and have no source of income and, as such, they require maintenance from the present applicant-Vasant. They had issued a notice to him on 31.10.2012 but false reply was sent by applicant-Vasant. The non-applicants reside at Prabhu Colony, Amravati and, therefore, the Amravati Court has jurisdiction to try the Application.
3. Applicant-Vasant filed his written statement and denied all the adverse allegations. He, however, stated that he was never supported by his parents for completing his education and, on the contrary, the ancestral land was sold by the non-applicants, whereas money was spent on education of Rajani and Chandan. Rajani took education at Indore and Chennai who obtained a degree in Engineering. Chandan took education in Indore in Engineering course. Rajani is a married daughter of non-applicants who is settled in USA and is earning Rs. 5 lakhs per month, while the younger son-Chandan is doing the business of estate broker at Armavati. Applicant-Vasant stated that he had purchased as many as six plots in the name of his younger brother-Chandan and father out of love and affection since he is residing and serving at Saudi Arabia, but Chandan disposed of the plots and he has been doing business in estate broker from the sale proceeds. The objection was taken by the applicant-Vasant that the married sister Rajani and brother Chandan are also under legal obligation to maintain their parents and they should have been made parties to the petition for claiming maintenance and non-joining thereof and, as such, he stated that the application was liable to be dismissed, vide paragraph 9 of the written statement. It was then stated that the applicant-Vasant had spent around Rs. 20 to 25 lakhs for purchasing the land, plots, marriage of Rajani, repayment of hand loan of the relatives over the non-applicants and the family
