VIJAYKUMAR Vs. PANDURANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned A.P.P. for Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 has not appeared inspite of service. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally at the admission stage.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for Petitioner submitted that Respondent No. 1 is father of Petitioner, who, alongwith stepmother of the present Petitioner, filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2010 for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C."). The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nanded partly allowed the Application and granted maintenance amount of Rs.5000/ - per month to Respondent No. 1 but declined the same as far as stepmother of the Petitioner was concerned.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the act of Respondent No. 1 in not making other two sons as party Respondents in the maintenance proceedings, should be treated as picking and choosing, for harassment of the Petitioner. According to the counsel, the maintenance should have been declined. The counsel submitted that the Petitioner has two sons, studying in the college and his own family to take care and that the maintenance amount granted is too high.