The liability of a son to pay maintenance to his father under Section 125, Cr.P.C. is distinct from and independent of the liability of the other children in the family to maintain the parents.

The present revision is by the son of the respondent, who has been directed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, by an order under S. 125, Cr.P.C. to pay monthly maintenance to the respondent at the rate Rs. 250/- per mensem.

2. The facts giving rise to the present revision are briefly as follows. The respondent filed an application under S. 125 Cr.P.C. on the allegation that the petitioner is his son and that he is aged 60 years and is living with his wife who is aged 56 years and also with his five children who are unemployed and that he was managing his big family with the income of the petitioner whose marriage he conducted in 1980 by borrowing a sum of Rs. 10, 000/-, and that even while the above debts were still outstanding, the petitioner left home contracting a second marriage with one Karpagam on 3-6-1982, and thereafter had stopped coming to his house and had taken up a permanent residence elsewhere with his second wife and the petitioner and his wife being too old and sick, where not able to maintain themselves and were starving without food and any means of livelihood. The petitioner was a watchman in Madras Telephones godown and getting a pay of Rs. 600/- per month besides earning about Rs. 500/- by sale of raffle tickets and plastic articles. The respondent sought an order of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month.

3. This action of the respondent was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that besides himself the respondent had other sons and daughters and some of whom were earning and were living with the respondent and that, therefore, he is not liable to pay maintenance. Further, he contended that his monthly pay was only Rs. 420/-, and he has no other source of income and he had to maintain his family from out of his pay and prayed for dismissal of the petition filed by the respondent.

4. In the Court below, the respondent examined himself as P.W. 1, and the petitioner examined himself as R.W. 1. On behalf of the respondent, Ex. P-1, showing the marriage between the petitioner and one Karpagam was marked. No documents were marked on the side of the petitioner.

5. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on the basis of the materials placed before him found that the respondent had no means to maintain himself and that the averments of the petitioner that some of the other brothers and sisters in the family were earning had not been substantiated and that the petitioner had neglected and failed to maintain the respondent and fixing the pay of the petitioner at Rs. 612/-, per month, ordered monthly maintenance to be paid to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 250/-. Aggrieved with the above order, this revision has been filed.

6. Thiru S. Kanakasabai, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the liability of the petitioner to maintain the respondent could not be fixed on him alone and that his liability to maintain was coexistent with the liability of his four brothers and three sisters who were also equally bound to maintain their father, the respondent herein, and that the respondent could not succeed unless his four other sons and three daughters were also made parties in these proceedings, and maintenance was claimed against them as well. According to the learned counsel, the words 'any person' found in Clause (1) of S. 125, Cr.P.C. would include the sons as well as daughters and the word 'his' in sub-cl. (d), of S. 125, Cr.P.C. would include 'her', and therefore, it was not open to the respondent to pick out one among his several children and make him liable to pay maintenance. In the alternative, it was also submitted that the respondent had not established that he had no means to maintain himself since there was no averments that some of his other children who were living with him were also earning. He also submitted that the amount awarded also was excessive. Per contra, Mrs. Sudha Ramalingam, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that S. 125, Cr.P.C