Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by Prashant Sharad Vyawahare (the son) challenging an order dated 5th October 2018 passed by the Family Court, Nanded, in Petition No. E-145 of 2016, which granted maintenance of Rs. 2500/- each to his parents (respondents). The parents had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) claiming maintenance from their son. The parties were residing under one roof. The son argued that the parents failed to prove that he refused and neglected to maintain them, as no specific incidents were pleaded or proved. He contended that the Family Court erred in relying on the parents' oral evidence without applying the same standard to his evidence. The son claimed that he had purchased the house where the parents and other siblings lived, and there was an agreement among siblings to pay him rent, from which he would maintain the parents. However, the siblings stopped paying, leading to a notice from him. The High Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the revision. It held that the parents' oral evidence that the son did not maintain them was sufficient to shift the burden to the son to prove that he was maintaining them. The son failed to discharge this burden. The court noted that living under the same roof does not automatically mean the son was maintaining the parents. The son's evidence about the house purchase and rent agreement did not prove actual maintenance. The court found no perversity or illegality in the Family Court's order and upheld the maintenance of Rs. 2500/- each to the parents. The revision was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Maintenance to Parents - Section 125 CrPC - Refusal and Neglect - The parents filed an application under Section 125 CrPC claiming maintenance from their son. The son contended that the parents did not prove refusal and neglect. The court held that living under the same roof does not automatically prove maintenance, and the parents' oral evidence that the son did not maintain them was sufficient to shift the burden to the son. The son failed to prove that he was maintaining them. (Paras 2-6) B) Criminal Law - Maintenance to Parents - Section 125 CrPC - Burden of Proof - The court held that once the parents assert that the son refused and neglected to maintain them, the burden shifts to the son to prove that he was maintaining them. The son's evidence that he purchased the house and that siblings agreed to pay rent was not sufficient to prove that he maintained the parents. (Paras 4-6) C) Criminal Law - Maintenance to Parents - Section 125 CrPC - Quantum of Maintenance - The Family Court granted Rs. 2500/- each to the parents. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the quantum, as the son did not challenge the quantum specifically. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the parents proved that the son refused and neglected to maintain them, and whether the Family Court's order granting maintenance of Rs. 2500/- each to the parents was legally sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, upholding the Family Court's order granting maintenance of Rs. 2500/- each to the parents. The rule was discharged.
Law Points
- Section 125 CrPC
- maintenance to parents
- refusal and neglect to maintain
- living under same roof
- burden of proof
- oral evidence
