ORDER :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. By way of this application under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant has, inter-alia, prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 26.3.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamnagar in Criminal Misc. Application no. 193 of 2022 and to enhance the amount of maintenance as well as to pay interim maintenance to respondent no.2 – son. The applicant, aged about 63 years, has filed a petition against the son, aged about 35 years, by moving the Family Court, Jamnagar in Criminal Misc. Application no. 193 of 2022.

2. Learned advocate Ms. Urmila Desai for the applicant has referred to the grounds raised in the application submitted that the applicant-mother has raised three children and presently, is residing with her elder daughter, named, Simaben, who is having a matrimonial dispute with the husband and the applicant is also having a minor grand daughter and another daughter is Bhavnaben, who is married and is residing with her husband at Chhattisgarh, while the present respondent no.2 – son is working in Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) at Jamnagar on the post of Manager.

2.1 Advocate Ms. Desai submitted that income of the son is recorded and proved before the Family Court. The format of the affidavit of assets, income and expenditure filed by the respondent no.2 shows that his monthly income was Rs.93,500/-. While referring to his expenditure as Rs.19,227/-, the learned Judge has considered the economical conditions of the three children of the applicant and has considered that it should be divided into five parts and thus, considering the economical status of the respondent no.2, the mother would be entitled for a monthly maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/-, but however, had ordered that it is the equal responsibility of all the three children to maintain the mother and hence, had finally ordered an amount of Rs.3,500/- to be paid by the son.

2.2 Ms. Desai has submitted that with the very meager widow pension of Rs.1,250/- and adding amount of Rs.3,500/-, as granted to the applicant, the applicant-mother would not be in a position to pay the rent amount and stated that one property, though is in the name of the mother, the possession of the house has not been given to the mother and that property, though is still running in the name of the mother, is still in possession of the respondent no.2 – son.

3. Considering the facts of the matter, which have been admitted by the respondent no.2 that he has the responsibility of wife and two children and if the responsibility of the mother as a dependent is considered, then, the income of the respondent no.2 would be divided into five parts. The daughter, who has come back, is having her own matrimonial issues and as per the respondent no.2, sister is taking care of the mother who is also having her own daughter and according to the respondent no.2, the said sister Simaben is paying the rent of the house.

4. This Court has considered the judgment in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi, rendered in Criminal Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) no. 15662 of 2025, wherein it has been observed in Paragraphs 11 to 16 as under:-

“11. The object of maintenance proceedings is well settled. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316, this Court held that the provision is intended to prevent destitution and that a wife is not required to establish absolute inability to survive before claiming maintenance. In Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015) 5 SCC 705, it was emphasized that maintenance must not be illusory and should enable the wife to live with dignity. Further, in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324, this Court reiterated that maintenance must be fair, reasonable and commensurate with the status of the parties and the financial capacity of the husband.

12. Tested