AKHILESH KUMAR JAGATRAMKA Vs. GANESH KUMAR JAGATRAMKALABIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner - son, who has filed this petition against his father and mother, must be reminded of old saying as it is said that God cannot be present everywhere, therefore, he created mothers.

(2.) The dispute is between father and mother on the one hand and one of the sons on the other hand. The parents / respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 claiming maintenance in which the petitioner has made averment that he is not the only son, he has two more brothers who had also received property by way of gift / partition from the respondents / their father and mother, and therefore they also be impleaded as party non-applicants in the said application, which has been turned down by the Family Court by the impugned order holding that other sons are not necessary party and relied upon a judgment of the Gauhati High Court in the matter of Akham Ibodi Singh and another v. Akham Biradhwaja Singh and another, 2006 CrLJ 3366 against which this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed.

(3.) Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the impugned order is unsustainable and bad in law. He would further submit that two brothers of the petitioner namely, Anant Jagatramka and Rajesh Kumar Jagatramka are necessary parties and they are also liable for maintenance and therefore they ought to have been impleaded as party non-applicants and as such, the order of the Family Court is liable to be set aside. Mr. Kesharwani has referred to a decision of the Bombay High Court in the matter of Vasant v. Govindrao Upasrao Naik and another,2016 SCCOnLineBom 1077 to support his plea.