Manzoor Ahmad Teeli vs Gh. Qadir Teeli And Anr

Sanjay Dhar, J

The petitioner has challenged order dated 10.03.2022 passed by learned Additional Special Mobile Magistrate Beerwah. The challenge has also been thrown to order dated 30.04.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Budgam, whereby the order of learned trial Magistrate, passed on 10.03.2022, has been upheld while considering the revision petition against the said order.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

It appears that the respondents, who happen to be the parents of the petitioner, approached the Court of learned trial Magistrate by filing an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C seeking maintenance against the petitioner. The learned trial Magistrate after hearing the parties passed the impugned order dated 10.03.2022, whereby monthly interim maintenance of Rs.3000/- has been awarded in favour of respondent No.1 and an amount of Rs.4000/- has been awarded in favour of respondent No.2.

The aforesaid order came to be challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Budgam by way of a revision petition. The Revisional Court upheld the order of learned trial Magistrate and dismissed the revision petition vide impugned order dated 30.04.2022.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the learned Courts below have, without taking into account the objections and the grounds pleaded by the petitioner, passed the impugned orders which are not sustainable in law. It has been submitted that the petitioner is earning only Rs.4300/- per month and that respondent No.1 is a man of means owning 20 kanals of land, as such, it was not open to the learned Courts below to award interim maintenance in favour of the respondents.

At the time of considering the question of grant of interim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C in favour of the deserted parents, the factors, which a Magistrate has to keep in mind, are the relationship between the parties, the question as to whether or not the parents are able to maintain themselves as also capacity of the son to maintain them. In the instant case the relationship between the parties is not in dispute.

The petitioner herein is an able bodied person. He has submitted that he is earning only Rs.3400/- per month but the fact of the matter is that he has capacity to earn and the respondents in their application have claimed that the petitioner owns a Bakery Shop at Bemina Srinagar and that his monthly income is about Rs.80,000/-.

The question as to what is the actual income of the petitioner is a matter of trial. But the fact remains that he has the means to maintain his parents. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.1 is a man of means can also be established only after the trial of the case filed by the respondents before the trial Magistrate. It has been submitted by them that respondent No.1 is suffering from CA and kidney disease and as such he is unable to maintain himself, whereas respondent No.2 is a house wife and has no income. The merits of all these assertions and counter assertions can be determined during the trial of the case.

In the face of the pleadings of the parties before the trial Magistrate, the said Court was justified in passing an interim order of maintenance in favour of the respondents. The amount of interim maintenance awarded by the learned Magistrate in favour of the respondents does not appear to be on higher side. Thus, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the orders passed by the learned trial Magistrate as has been upheld by the revisional Court.

For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.