Is a child against whom the parent stakes a claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C entitled to contend that the parent must reside with him/her to justify such claim ? Are Sections 125(3) (second proviso), 125(4) and 125(5) applicable impliedly to the claim of a parent? These questions are raised in this R.P.F.C by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Petitioners were respondents in a claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C staked before the Family Court by the respondent herein, who is the wife of the 1st petitioner and the mother of the 2nd petitioner. The learned Judge of the Family Court had directed the 2nd petitioner alone to pay an amount of Rs.750/- per mensem as maintenance to the claimant/respondent. The claim against the 1st petitioner was refused. There is no challenge against that. The 1st petitioner has come to this Court with this petition only to give company to his son, the 2nd petitioner. I find no other purpose at all.

3. Status of the respondent as the mother of the 2nd petitioner is admitted. That she is residing separately is admitted. That she is residing in a house belonging to the 1st petitioner, which has been allegedly assigned by him in favour of the 2nd petitioner is also not disputed. Of course, it is submitted that there is litigation between the parties on the validity of such an assignment. The claimant is residing in that house along with her daughter and son in law.

4. The mother claimed that she is unable to maintain herself. She claimed maintenance from both the petitioners. The petitioners resisted the claim for maintenance on the ground that the claimant is residing separately along with her daughter and son in law without any justifiable excuse. She is not coming and living with the petitioners. She is not permitting the petitioners to reside along with her in the house. There was a further contention that another son of the claimant was killed in a motor accident and that she has staked claim for compensation before the court. Admittedly except an initial payment of Rs.25,000/-, the balance of compensation has not been received by her. The learned Judge of the Family Court on an anxious consideration of all the relevant circumstances came to the conclusion that the 2nd petitioner is liable to pay maintenance @ Rs.750/- per mensem to the claimant.

5. The 2nd petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the order. What is the grievance ? Arguments have been heard in detail for admission. The learned counsel for the petitioners assails the impugned order on various grounds.

6. First of all it is contended that the claimant is residing separately without sufficient cause. The contention stems from a very basic misconception that like the wife the mother is also bound to stay with the child from whom she claims maintenance to justify her claim. There is nothing in the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C which can even remotely suggest that a child against whom the claim for maintenance is staked by the parent can resist the claim successfully on the plea that the parent is refusing to live with him/her. Such a plea is not recognised by law at all. Individuality of the hapless parent is recognised by law and the law does not oblige or compel such claimant/parent to necessarily reside with the child to entitle him/her to claim maintenance. The absence of a provision similar to Section 125 (3) (its second proviso), 125(4) and 125(5) Cr.P.C in respect of the parents is in this context significant. I am certainly of the opinion that the law permits the parent to claim maintenance from the child and it is not a defence for the child to contend that the parent is not residing with him and that he/she will maintain the parent only if the parent is so willing to reside with him. Such a plea is not available to a child facing the claim for maintenance of the parent. Under Section 125 Cr.P.C a father, mother, wife and children are entitled to claim maintenance. But it is significant that the legis