TAPPAKANA VEERA SWAMY Vs. TAPPAKANA RAM CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are filed against the orders granting maintenance by the Courts below. The respondents 1 and 2 are no other than the parents of the petitioner. The first respondent (father) is aged 72 years and the second respondent (mother) is aged 66 years. Though they are staying with one of their sons, they claim that they are unable to maintain themselves and that the petitioner even though he has got definite capability to maintain them has refused and neglected to maintain them. The Courts below fixed the quantum of maintenance at Rs.200/- per month to each of the respondents 1 and 2 totalling to Rs.400/- per month. While the Court of Magistrate ordered maintenance from the date of order, the Court of Sessions granted maintenance from the date of petition.

(2.) Mr. V. Ravikiran Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the petitioner is not the only son to the respondents 1 & 2 and that there are two other sons to them, that the other sons of the respondents 1 and 2 are well-placed and claiming the maintenance only against the petitioner herein is unreasonable. His further contention is that either the father or the mother is entitled to claim for maintenance, but both of them cannot, simultaneously, claim maintenance, as in the event of father getting maintenance, the mother is not entitled. The father being getting maintenance, he is liable to maintain the mother i.e., his wife. Further contention of Mr. V. Ravikiran Rao is that the quantum is on high side and that the respondents 1 and 2 are already getting maintenance from other sons. In any event, he submits that the alteration of the date of payment of maintenance from the date of order to that of the filing of the petition by the Court of Session was unwarranted.

(3.) Countering this argument, Ms. V. Lakshmi Kumari submits that the maintenance can be claimed by the respondents against any one of their sons and that as their other sons are unable to pay the requisite maintenance to her clients i.e., respondents 1 and 2, they were entitled to claim for maintenance. With regard to entitlement of respondent No.2 to file an application for maintenance in the face of grant of maintenance to her husband i.e. first respondent herein, Ms. V. Lakshmi Kumari contends that Section 125(1)(d) of Criminal Procedure Code does not disentitle the second respondent to claim maintenance. With regard to the quantum of maintenance, she states that Rs.200/- per month to each of the respondents 1 and 2 is not on high side, more so in view of the fact that the petitioner is getting a salary over Rs.2,000/- per month and not less than Rs.1,500/- as take-home salary without any liability to maintain children as he is childless excepting his wife. The learned Counsel states that the medical expenses which the petitioner incurs will be reimbursed by his employer. She asserts that the grant of maintenance from the date of petition is permissible under law and that there is no illegality in the same. Even though the respondents 1 and 2 have got three sons, it is not mandatory that they should claim maintenance against each of the sons and that they can always choose a particular son/s who is/are capable of maintaining them, but refused to maintain and neglected them. As such there is no embargo to choose one of the sons for making him liable to pay maintenance to his parents. Insofar as the next contention is concerned, Mr. V. Ravikiran Rao contended that if the husband is alive and he has got capacity to maintain his wife and in that event, there is a disentitlement for the said wife to claim maintenance as a mother from her children. The words occurring in Section 125(l)(d) "his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself" have to be read not in conjunction, but they should be read in disjunction. If so read, it is either father or mother and both of them are entitled to claim maintenance independently upto maximum limit of Rs.500/- per month. The fact that father has joined the mother to claim maintenance against his son implies that the father is not having any means to maintain himself and the question of maintaining his wife cannot arise. As such I reject the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner on this aspect and hold that the words "his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself" enable both the father and mother jointly to claim maintenance within permissible maximum limit of Rs.500/- each. So far as the quantum is concerned, I do not think that Rs.200/- per month to each of the respondents 1 and 2 is excessive, as already mentioned supra. Even the actuals received by the petitioner are not less than Rs.1,500/- per month and he has to maintain his wife only as he is childless. In any event payment of Rs.200/- to each of the respondents 1 and 2 towards maintenance is not excessive. There is some considerable force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that granting maintenance from the date of the petition as against the order of the Court of Magistrate is unwarranted. Inasmuch as the respondents 1 and 2 were living with their third son, taking the same as consideration, the Court of Magistrate has ordered the payment of maintenance from the date of the order and that is just and reasonable. In the circumstances, I set aside the order of the Court of Session only to the extent of granting maintenance from the date of petition and restore the order of the Court of Magistrate. Arrears if any shall be payable by the petitioner to the respondents 1 and 2 within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the petitioner shall continue to pay the ordered maintenance promptly within tenth of every English calender month, commencing from March, 1993.