What defences are and are not available to the children to resist the claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. raised against them by their parents? This question arises for consideration in this revision petition directed against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the Family Court directing the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.350/- & Rs.250/- respectively to the respondent herein – admittedly their father.

2. The relationship and status of the parties are not disputed. The claimant-father contended that he is unable to maintain himself and that the petitioners herein, his sons are refusing and neglecting to maintain him.

3. Various contentions were raised. The claimant-father is not unable to maintain himself. The petitioners-sons are not having sufficient means. The claimant-father had neglected and refused to maintain the petitioners herein during their minority and it was their mother who brought them up and educated them. The claimant-father was leading a licentious life discarding the mother of the petitioner. He was living along with two other ladies. The petitioners are willing to maintain the claimant, their father on conditions that he lives with them. These appear to be the contentions raised before the Family Court.

4. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The claimant examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.A1 to A8. The 1st petitioner/son examined himself as CPW1. His mother was examined as CPW2. A Pastor who claimed to be related to the petitioner was examined as CPW3 and the purpose of his examination was to indicate that the claimant was living with some other women. Exts.B1 to B20 were marked.

5. The family Court on an anxious consideration of all these contentions came to the conclusion that thought there are indications to show that the claimant-father is having some properties, that is not sufficient to hold that he is not a person unable to maintain himself. It was further found that both the petitioners are having sufficient means. The court found that the prior alleged indifferent conduct of the father is no defence to a claim for maintenance by him. Finally the court found that an amount of Rs.350/- & Rs.250/- respectively from the petitioners herein can safely be accepted as the quantum of maintenance payable to the claimant. Accordingly the Family Court proceeded to pass the impugned order.

6. Counsel for the rival contestants have advanced arguments before me. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised several contentions.

7. First of all it is contended that the claimant-father was indifferent to the petitioners’ mother and the petitioners and that he had not discharged his duties as a dutiful father/husband. This contention is totally irrelevant as the legal status of the claimant as the father of the petitioners is admitted. Liability to pay maintenance under Section 135 Cr.P.C arises from the existence of the relationship and not from the manner in which duties arising from such relationship had been performed by the claimant. Even if it be assumed that the contention that the father was indifferent to his children earlier were correct, that is no defence in a claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C to turn down the claim of the claimant-father.

8. That the claimant is living with two other women is the next contention. Immoral or amoral behaviour of the claimant-father also, even if it is assumed to be true, unless that circumstance indicates his affluence and his ability to maintain himself is again no defence is a claim for maintenance by the father under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. do not recognize such a defence at all. The second contention must also hence fail.

9. Thirdly it is contended that the petitioners are willing to maintain the claimant father provided he resumes his residence along with them. This again is not a defence available to the children in a claim by the parent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Law concedes such a defenc