IMPORTANT POINT
A son is legally obligated to maintain his elderly parents, and the courts will enforce this obligation under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ensuring that maintenance amounts are just and proportionate to the son's income.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH CHAND, J.

1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 15.03.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Koderma in Original Maintenance Case No.11 of 2022, whereby the learned Court below has allowed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the petitioner to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.3000/-to the opposite party No.2-father.

2. The brief facts leading to this Criminal Revision are that the maintenance application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was moved on behalf of the father against his younger son with these averments that he is old person having two sons, namely, Pradip Kumar and Manoj Kumar. His younger son, namely, Manoj Kumar is quarrelsome, cruelsome and manhandling person. Applicant i.e. Deoki Sao had transferred his land to his both sons on 21.02.1994 comprising total area of 3.983/5 acres and the same was divided to both the sons equally and both have been cultivating the same. His elder son Pradip Kumar is maintaining him while Manoj Kumar, his younger son has not been maintaining him rather hurling abuse used to insult and assault him. His son Manoj Kumar is also carrying on a shop in the village itself and has been earning Rs.50,000/-per month and he has also income of Rs.2,00,000/-per annum from the agricultural land. On 02.11.2021, he assaulted and injured him, whereby he was treated by Dr. Daljeet Singh. Therefore, claimed the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/-per month from the opposite party-Manoj Kumar.

3. On behalf of the opposite party-Manoj Kumar, the reply of show cause was given with these averments that the petitioner is his father. He is habitual litigant of the society and several cases are being litigated by him in different Courts of Koderma. He was going to sell his ancestral property, the same was opposed by the opposite party, whereby he become annoyed and also threatened him to teach lesson. The opposite party No.2 started to torture him in collusion with his another son Pradip Kumar and filed several cases against him. The petitioner is money minded has so many sources of income and with a view to harass the opposite party, the present maintenance application has been filed. In view of the above, prayed to dismiss the maintenance application.

4. On behalf of the petitioner in oral evidence examined P.W.-1, Pradip Kumar; P.W.-2, Vakil Sao and; P.W.-3, Deoki Sao, the petitioner himself.

5. On behalf of the opposite party in oral evidence examined O.P.W.-1, Gudia Devi; O.P.W.-2, Arjun Sao and: O.P.W.-3, Manoj Kumar.

6. The learned trial Court after hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties passed the impugned judgment on 15.03.2023 allowed the maintenance application and directed to the opposite party No.2 to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.3000/-per month to the petitioner (his father) from the date of application i.e. on 15.02.2022. The arrear of maintenance amount was directed to be paid within two months.

7. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment, the instant Criminal Revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner-younger son on the grounds that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is bad in the eyes of law. The maintenance amount awarded by the learned Court below is not in proportion to the income of the son. No affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner making disclosure in regard to his assets and liabilities just to enable the Court to reach on the proper conclusion. From the deposition of the witnesses itself, it is evident that the father of the petitioner has been earning his livelihood from the agriculture and bricks kiln. The learned Court below failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. In view of the above, prayed to allow this Criminal Revision and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials