Back
2023 Supreme(HP) 168
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Paramjit Kaur - Petitioner
Versus
Raghubir Singh & others - Respondents
Cr. Revision No.255 of 2017
Decided On : 04-11-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate
For maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., all essential ingredients must co-exist at the time of the order, and the petitioner must demonstrate an inability to maintain herself.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Maintenance - Revision petition challenging order for maintenance set aside by Additional Sessions Judge - Essential ingredients for awarding maintenance must co-exist at the time of passing order - Petitioner receiving maintenance from other sons, deemed able to maintain herself - Respondent directed to pay Rs.2000/- per month from 01.11.2023. (Paras 10, 11, 22, 24)
(B) Maintenance - Criteria for awarding maintenance - All necessary ingredients must be present at the time of passing the order - Mere allegations insufficient for granting maintenance. (Paras 11, 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a mother, sought maintenance from her four sons, claiming neglect and inability to maintain herself. The trial court had initially awarded maintenance, which was later challenged by one son, leading to the current revision petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner was receiving sufficient maintenance from her other sons and that the respondent's financial claims did not justify further maintenance.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the respondent had sufficient means and whether the petitioner was unable to maintain herself.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that all essential ingredients under Section 125 Cr.P.C. must be present at the time of passing an order for maintenance, and the petitioner was deemed capable of maintaining herself due to existing support from her other sons.
Result: The respondent was directed to pay Rs.2000/- per month.
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Present Revision Petition has been filed, assailing order dated 22.06.2017, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P., in Criminal Revision Petition No.9-N/10 of 2016, titled as Raghubir Singh vs. Paramjeet Kaur & others, whereby order dated 22.02.2016, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Criminal Petition No.163/4 of 2013, titled as Paramjeet Kaur vs. Raghubir Singh & others allowing the petition of the petitioner by directing respondents No.1 and 4 to pay each monthly maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to their mother w.e.f. month of May 2013, has been set aside.
2. Petitioner is mother of respondent Raghubir Singh. She has four sons. On 09.05.2013, she preferred a petition under Section 125 The Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) against her four sons, claiming Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance amount from the date of filing of petition by keeping in view inflation as well as necessities of life, with a prayer to award Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. Present respondent Raghubir Singh was respondent No.1 in the said petition and other three sons of petitioner were respondent No.2-Gurmeet Singh, respondent No.3-Nirmal Singh and respondent No.4-Pritam Singh.
3. As per petitioner, respondent No.1, running a Tea Stall near Civil Hospital main bazaar Paonta Sahib and having agricultural land measuring 9-10 bighas in Village Barotiwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, was earning Rs.25,000/- per month; respondent No.2, owner of 9-10 bighas land in Village Barotiwala, was earning around Rs.15,000/-, per month; respondent No.3, serving in Indian Army and having agricultural land measuring 8-9 bighas in Village Barotiwala, was earning around Rs.20,000/- per month; and respondent No.4, working in a Factory and having agricultural land measuring 9-10 bighas in Village Barotiwala, was earning about Rs.20,000/- per month.
4. As per petitioner, she alongwith her deceased husband brought up their sons by providing every facility and education as per their status and after death of her husband, his entire agricultural land was inherited by her sons in equal shares and no land was kept by the petitioner for herself and she was dependent upon her sons for maintenance, but they were ill-treating her and were not maintaining her and in April 2013 she was forcibly thrown out of her house, which was constructed by her husband and petitioner was and is residing with Gurmeet Singh in Village Barotiwala, and with no source of income being widow she was living at mercy of Gurmeet Singh, who was also not providing her food, clothes and medicines etc.
5. As per petitioner, her four married daughters, as and when wanted to visit the petitioner, petitioner was having no house for stay of her daughters, and, therefore, they were not able to meet her.
6. In present proceedings, respondents No.2 to 4 were deleted on an application filed by the petitioner stating therein that those respondents were paying the maintenance to the petitioner as per order of the Trial Court and, thus, they are not necessary party in present Revision Petition.
7. Before the Magistrate, respondents No.2 and 3 appeared and conceded to the claim of the petitioner and undertook to pay Rs.5000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of filing of petition, and petition qua them was disposed of accordingly. However, respondent No.4 did not appear before the Magistrate and an ex parte order directing him to pay Rs.3000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner, was passed at the time of passing of final order dated 22.02.2016 in Criminal Petition No.163/4 of 2013, titled as Paramjeet Kaur vs. Raghubir Singh & others whereby present respondent (respondent No.1) was also directed to pay the same amount, i.e. Rs.3000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner.
8. The aforesaid order dated 22.02.2016 was assailed by present respondent Raghubir Singh. Whereas, respondents
