Case Note & Summary
The present revision petition was filed by two sons, Veerashetty (a lecturer) and Laxmikant (a conductor in KSRTC), challenging the order dated 09.02.2017 passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Kalaburagi, in Crl. Misc. No.90/2015. The Family Court had allowed the petition filed by their father, Suresh Chawan, aged 67 years, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directing the elder son to pay Rs.5,000/- per month and the younger son to pay Rs.2,500/- per month as maintenance from the date of the petition. The father claimed that he had worked as a driver in KSRTC, retired in 2008, and had spent his earnings on his sons' education and employment. He alleged that his sons neglected him despite his old age and lack of income. The sons opposed the claim, arguing that they had their own family liabilities and that the father had separated from them. The High Court, while dismissing the revision, observed that it was unfortunate that educated sons had filed the revision against their own father. The court held that the sons were legally obligated to maintain their father under Section 125 CrPC, and the quantum of maintenance was reasonable considering the sons' income and the father's needs. The court found no illegality or irregularity in the Family Court's order and dismissed the revision petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Maintenance - Section 125 CrPC - Obligation of Children - The court held that sons are duty-bound to maintain their aged father who is unable to maintain himself, irrespective of personal liabilities or strained relations. The father's retirement and lack of income justify the claim. (Paras 2-5) B) Criminal Law - Maintenance - Quantum - Section 125 CrPC - The court upheld the award of Rs.5,000/- per month from the elder son (lecturer) and Rs.2,500/- per month from the younger son (conductor), finding it reasonable given their income and the father's needs. (Paras 4-5) C) Criminal Law - Maintenance - Revision - Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act - The High Court dismissed the revision petition, finding no illegality or irregularity in the Family Court's order, as the sons failed to show any ground for interference. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court's order directing the petitioners (sons) to pay maintenance to their father under Section 125 CrPC is legal and proper, and whether the quantum of maintenance is excessive.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the Family Court's order directing the petitioners to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000 per month (elder son) and Rs.2,500 per month (younger son) to their father from the date of the petition.
Law Points
- Obligation of children to maintain aged parents under Section 125 CrPC
- Maintenance quantum based on income and status
- No exemption from maintenance due to personal liabilities or strained relations
