BAHULEYAN Vs. KARTHIYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, an old and indigent mother had to face the unfortunate ordeal of an opposition from an apparently affluent son, when she moved for maintenance under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The petitioner is the first counter petitioner in M. C. 39 of 1976 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kottarakkara. The 1st respondent is the mother of the petitioner. The second respondent is his brother. Besides the above persons, the 1st respondent has another son and a daughter. Going by the allegations in M. C. 39 of 1976, the present petitioner is getting a daily income of Rs. 100/- out of his textile shop. He has also got immovable properties yielding an annual income of Rs. 5,000/-. The 2nd respondent has invested Rs. 2000/- on a small trade. Another son of the first respondent not on record is a T. B. patient and as such not in a position to earn a livelihood of his own. The daughter is depending for her maintenance on her husband. The first respondent, who is an old woman aged seventy five is stated to be neglected by her children and is unable to maintain herself. She claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 175/- from the petitioner and Rs. 25/- against the 2nd respondent. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, on an appraisal of the evidence adduced by the 1st respondent and the petitioner, allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 60/-. The petitioner was directed to pay at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month and the 2nd respondent at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month. The 2nd respondent did not contest the petition and he is ex parte here also.

(3.) The main contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no justification in directing him to pay at the rate of Rs.50/- whereas the 2nd respondent is directed to pay only at the rate of Rs. 10/- and no liability has been imposed on the two children who are not made parties to the proceedings. According to the petitioner, it was incumbent on the first respondent to have claimed maintenance against all her children, as the liability to maintain the parents vests equally on all of them. He contended that the petition under S.125 Cr. P.C. was not maintainable in law in the absence of the remaining children on record and it has to be set aside on that sole ground.