RAM LADAITEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINEET Saran, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 18-1-2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad awarding maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month to be paid by the petitioner to his father Respondent No. 2 who had filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. Besides the said amount, a sum of Rs. 250/- per month is to be paid by each of the other two sons, i. e. Respondents No. 3 and 4.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the Respondent No. 2 Durjan Lal, who is father of the petitioner as well as Respondents No. 3 and 4, filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. for grant of maintenance on the ground that the petitioner has an income of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the business of furniture and that the other two sons are also having substantial income. It was also stated that the applicant- Respondent No. 2 Durjan Lal was 80 years of age and had sold his property and got his three sons settled from the proceeds of sale. THEreafter the three sons left their father unattended and thus the father (Respondent No. 2) was compelled to file a petition for grant of maintenance. THE trial Court has recorded a categorical finding that despite notice, the sons did not contest the case and after holding that the sons had substantial income, the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance allowance of Rs. 1,000/- per month and the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who had lesser income, were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 250/- each as maintenance allowance to their father. After the passing of the impugned order dated 18-1-2006, the petitioner filed an application for recalling the said order, which was dismissed in default on 18-10-2006 (copy of which has not been filed with the petition ). THE petitioner then filed an application for recalling the order dated 18-10-2006 stating that he could not appear on the date fixed because he had gone to his in-law's place, as his brother-in-law had expired. THE said application was contested by the Respondent No. 2 and a finding of fact has been recorded to the effect that the petitioner does not have any brother-in-law and as such the question of his going to his in-law's place because of the death of his brother-in-law, does not arise. In the writ petition nothing has been placed before me to show that the findings of fact recorded by the Court below are incorrect.

(3.) IN the aforesaid circumstances I do not find any illegality with the impugned orders and as such no interference is called for in this writ petition. This writ petition is thus liable to be dismissed. Considering the attitude of the petitioner towards his father and also the fact that even though the order for payment of maintenance had been passed on 18-1-2006 (which was nearly one and half years back), instead of paying the said amount, the petitioner has been dragging his father into further litigation and has gone to the extent of filing false affidavit, in my view, the petition should not only be dismissed but the petitioner should be saddled with cost, which is assessed, at Rs. 5,000.