C BALAN Vs. C DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is a child against whom the parent stakes a claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. entitled to contend that the parent must reside with him/her to justify such claim? Are Sections 125(3) (second proviso), 125(4) and 125(5) applicable impliedly to the claim of a parent? These questions are raised in this R.P.F.C. by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) Petitioners were respondents in a claim under Section 125 Cr. P.C. staked before the Family Court by the respondent herein, who is the wife of the 1st petitioner and the mother of the 2nd petitioner. The learned Judge of the Family Court had directed the 2nd petitioner alone to pay an amount of Rs. 750 per mensem as maintenance to the claimant/respondent. The claim against the 1st petitioner was refused. There is no challenge against that. The 1st petitioner has come to this Court with this petition only to give company to his son, the 2nd petitioner. I find no other purpose at all.

(3.) Status of the respondent as the mother of the 2nd petitioner is admitted. That she is residing separately is admitted. That she is residing in a house belonging to the 1st petitioner, which has been allegedly assigned by him in favour of the 2nd petitioner is also not disputed. Of course, it is submitted that there is litigation between the parties on the validity of such an assignment. The claimant is residing in that house along with her daughter and son-in-law.