SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Ori) 629

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.K. SAHOO, J.
Subash Darjee - Petitioner
Versus
Basanti Darjee - Opp. party
RPFAM NO. 21 of 2014
Decided On : 21-09-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. H.S. Mishra, P. Agarawal, A. Parida, K. Badhai
For the Opp. Party : Trilochan Nanda, K. Dash, B.K. Panda

The main legal point established in the judgment is that in proceedings under section 125 of Cr.P.C., the claimant is not required to implead all children as parties, and the duty of children to maintain their parents is emphasized.

Headnote:

Maintenance - Family Dispute - Section 125 of Cr.P.C. - 125(1)(d) of Cr.P.C. - Basanta Kumari Mohanty -Vrs.-Sarat Kumar Mohanty - Smt. Kuni Dei @ Kuni Behadi -Vrs.- Pabitra Mohan Behadi - A. Ahathinamiligai -Vrs.-Arumughnam - Mahendrakumar -Vrs.-Gulabbai - Bharat Lal -Vrs.-Bhanumati - Anima Majhi -Vrs.-Arun Majhi - Smt. Kuni Dei @ Kuni Behadi -Vrs.- Pabitra Mohan Behadi - Smt. Kuni Dei @ Kuni Behadi -Vrs.- Pabitra Mohan Behadi - A. Ahathinamiligai -Vrs.-Arumughnam - Mahendrakumar -Vrs.-Gulabbai - Bharat Lal -Vrs.-Bhanumati - Anima Majhi -Vrs.-Arun Majhi - Smt. Kuni Dei @ Kuni Behadi -Vrs.- Pabitra Mohan Behadi

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application to dismiss the maintenance claim filed by the opposite party under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for not impleading the other sons and daughters of the opposite party as parties in the application.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the opposite party was not required to implead her other sons and daughters as parties in the maintenance application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. and dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the maintainability of the application.

Issues: The main issue was whether the opposite party was required to implead her other sons and daughters as parties in the maintenance application under section 125 of Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the proceedings under section 125 of Cr.P.C. are of a summary nature and that the expression 'means' in section 125 does not signify only visible means, but also includes the ability to support the claimant. The court also highlighted the duty of children to maintain their parents when they become old and infirm.

Final Decision: The court directed the opposite party to implead her other sons as parties in the maintenance application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. and ordered the Family Court to expedite the proceedings and dispose of the matter within six months from the date of service of notice on the other sons.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Sahoo, J.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Subash Darjee challenging the impugned order dated 30.11.2013 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Balangir in C.M.C. No. 1/37 of 2012-13 in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner to hold that the application filed by the opposite party Basanti Darjee, the mother of the petitioner under section 125 of Cr.P.C. as not maintainable for not impleading the other sons and daughters of the opposite party as parties in the application.

2. The opposite party Basanti Darjee filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance against the petitioner Subash Darjee. It is her case that she is a widow and the petitioner is her eldest son and her husband died on 21.04.2008 and she is blessed with two other sons and two daughters but the other sons are living hand to mouth for which they were not made parties in the proceeding. It is her further case that the late husband of the opposite party left behind some properties which have been forcibly occupied by the petitioner and there are also rented houses and shop rooms and the petitioner is appropriating all the rents and profits of the house properties. It is her further case that the opposite party and her daughter have filed Civil Suit No. 144 of 2011 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balangir for partition and other reliefs and the petitioner and other children of the opposite party are parties to the said suit. It is the case of the opposite party that the petitioner drove her out of the ancestral house and she was not provided with food and clothing and abusive language was hurled at all times and the petitioner had no respect for her. It is her further case that she is an old lady and suffering from various ailments and the petitioner has denied food and clothing to her and she is unable to maintain herself out of the properties left behind by her late husband because of the high handed and illegal action of the petitioner and that the petitioner had gone to the extent of assaulting her for which she approached the police on several occasions for protection. It is further stated in her application that the petitioner is a man of means and he is in forcible possession of all the properties left behind by his father and also working as a lecturer in Dahimal College, Tusura and he is also running a coaching centre and his monthly income is around Rs.70,000/-. In spite of having sufficient means, the petitioner is refusing and neglecting to maintain her and accordingly, the monthly maintenance of Rs.7,000/-from the date of application i.e. 02.01.2012 was claimed by the opposite party against the petitioner.

3. On being noticed, the petitioner filed his show cause, inter alia, disputing the averments made in the 125 Cr.P.C. application. It is the case of the petitioner that another son of the opposite party namely Bikash Ranjan Darjee is having flower shop nearer to the Samaleswari Temple namely “Mahalaxmi Pushpa Bhandar” and his monthly income is not less than Rs.20,000/-and that he is also a Railway and Air E-ticket travel agent and his income is not less than Rs.5000/-per month. It is further stated in the show cause that the opposite party and her son Bikash and daughter Kamalini were jointly residing in the dwelling house which measures an area of 3440 Sq. feet. It is further stated in the show cause that the petitioner has got no objection if the opposite party stays with his family but she is adamant and stays with her other son Bikash and daughter Kamalini and the later works as an Assistant Teacher in Khamarmunda Government Primary School and getting a salary of Rs.20,603/-. While disputing his own income, the petitioner stated in his show cause that he only gets Rs.3000/-while working as a lecturer in Political Science in the Privately Managed College of Dahimal. It is further stated that Nalini, Kamalini and Bikash have joined hands for not pro















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top