1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

Madhav Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

(S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1899/2009)

Date of Order :-

05^th October, 2009

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN

Mr.Ripu Daman Singh Naruka, for the petitioner.

The petitioner has challenged the orders dated

20.11.2008 & dated 11.08.2009 passed by the Family Court. By the

former order, the Family Court has increased the maintenance

amount from Rs.500/- per mensem to Rs.1000/- per mensem and

directed the petitioner pay the same to his father, the respondent

No.2. By the latter order, the learned Family Court has directed

attachment of the petitioner's property and for the recovery of

Rs.4,000/- which was owed by the petitioner to his father.

Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka, the learned counsel for

the petitioner, has vehemently raised the following contentions

before this court : firstly, he has been regularly paying the

maintenance to his father. However, despite his regular payment, the

learned Judge has directed the attachment of his property. Secondly,

he is willing to keep his father with him. However, his father refuses

to live with him and prefers to stay separately. Thirdly, all the

brothers together are paying maintenance to the father. The total

amount is more than the upper limit prescribed by law.

2

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused

the impugned orders.

A bare perusal of the order dated 11.08.2009 clearly

reveals that the petitioner had raised the same plea before the Family

Court namely that he has been regularly paying the maintenance

amount to his father. However, neither before the Family Court, nor

before this Court, the petitioner has submitted an iota of evidence to

prove this fact. Therefore, despite the order dated 20.11.2008, the

petitioner has failed to pay Rs.4,000/- to the respondent No.2. Hence,

the learned Judge was legally justified in issuing the attachment

order against the petitioner.

The petitioner's plea that he is willing to keep his father,

is merely an afterthought. In case, he were willing to keep his father

and in case, his father still refuses to live with him, there is no reason

why the petitioner should not pay the maintenance amount to his

father as ordered by the court vide order dated 20.11.2008.

Therefore, his plea that he is willing to keep his father is merely a

pretense before this court.

The contention raised by the learned counsel that the

maintenance amount being paid by all the three brothers is higher

than the upper limit prescribed by law, is also unacceptable. The

petitioner has to worry about himself, and not about his other

brothers. The learned Judge had increased the maintenance amount

from Rs.500/- per month to Rs.1000/- per month. Thus, the learned

Judge has not gone beyond the upper limit as prescribed by law.

Hence, the said plea raised by the learned counsel is unsustainable.

3

It is, indeed, tragic to see that the petitioner, who is the

son of respondent No.2, has defaulted in paying the maintenance

amount to his own father. It is not only the legally duty of a son to

maintenance his aged parents, it is also his moral duty to do so. The

patents, who must have sacrificed moments of happiness, must have

spent their hard earned money on the children, do deserve better

treatment from the children, when the aged parents have entered the

twilight zone of their life. Despite all the materialism in this country,

the people cannot forget the rich tradition of this country, where sons

have devoted their lives to their parents. The ideals found in the

Puranic story and in the epics are not idols to be worship in temples,

but are ideal role model to be emulated in one's personal life.

Under these facts and circumstances, and for the

reasons stated above, this petition is devoid of any m