PAWAN SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by a son against his father and elder brother claiming that the order of maintenance dated 15th March, 2010 passed by the ADM (South) Maintenance Tribunal (South-District) under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (in short the Act). The grievance of the Petitioner in brief is that his father the Respondent No. 2 herein did not make his elder brother Respondent No. 3 as the Respondent in the said maintenance petition before the Tribunal and, thus, an order of maintenance has been passed only qua the Petitioner and not the elder brother. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner is a driver by profession and earns Rs. 4,000/- per month. The Respondent No. 2 is biased towards Respondent No. 3 and because of his affection towards Respondent No. 3, Respondent No. 2 & 3 are living together.

(2.) According to him the Petitioner alone is not liable to maintain Respondent No. 2, his father and Respondent No. 3 is also legally bound to share the said responsibility. The Petitioner was given some portion of the property to live by the mother during her life-time who started living along with his family over there by constructing two rooms over the said plot. This has become the bone of contention and Respondent No. 2 on the instigation of Respondent No. 3 harasses the Petitioner. The income of Respondent No. 3 is more than 20,000/- per month from all sources whereas that of the Petitioner is only Rs. 4,000/- and he has no other source of income except the salary. The Learned Tribunal has directed the Petitioner to pay Rs. 2000/- per month to the Respondent No. 2 and thus the Petitioner and his family have no means to survive. It is thus prayed that the impugned order be quashed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 on the other hand contends that the Respondent No. 3 has shifted to Faridabad and is living over there for the last 15 years. He has no concern with the family. The father i.e. Respondent No. 2 is living separately in the property owned by him which is his self-acquired property. The Respondent No. 3 despite living in Faridabad is sending regular help and maintenance to Respondent No. 2 and thus he has no grievance against Respondent No. 3. It is the Petitioner who was not paying any maintenance to the father and thus Respondent No. 2 was constrained to file an application before the Learned Tribunal. Hence there is no merit in the present petition and the same be dismissed.