Sham Lal vs Raj Kumar And Another

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

A father’s petition preferred under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against his two sons for grant of maintenance has been

allowed by the learned Family Court and both his sons have been ordered to pay Rs.2500/- per month each to their father. One of the sons has

assailed the order passed by the learned Family Court in the instant appeal.

The original petitioner claimed maintenance from his two sons on the grounds that he had provided for and looked after his sons in every way during

his hay days. He has also willed away his landed property in favour of his sons. However, in twilight of his life, his sons have been maltreating and

misbehaving with him. Neither the original petitioner has any money left with him nor he, being old and infirm, is in a position to do any work to

maintain himself. He emphasized need for money for his clothing, medicines and other basic necessities of life.

One of the sons (present respondent No.2) was proceeded ex-parte. The other son (present appellant) contested the petition. He though admitted the

relationship between the parties, but expressed his inability to maintain his father on account of his not having fixed income. After considering the

pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, learned Family Court directed both the sons to pay Rs.2500/- per month each to the original petitioner.

It is in this backdrop that the instant appeal has been filed.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.

3(i). While appearing in the witness box, the original petitioner stated that the landed property stood mutated in the name of his grandsons. He also

denied being in possession of the landed property. He also stated that his both sons have been earning Rs.1000/- to Rs.1200/- per day. Contesting son

Shyam Lal (present appellant) admitted that his father suffers from various ailments. He has also admitted that he has not borne the expenses towards

basic needs of his father (original petitioner). He has never brought medicines for his father nor he has ever taken him to hospital. Appellant denied

having fixed income.

3(ii). It is an admitted fact that the appellant is son of respondent No.1 (original petitioner). It is also not in dispute that the original petitioner is now

aged seventy years and suffering from various ailments.

3(iii). Benevolent provisions in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide remedy to distressed women, children and parents. Hon’ble

Apex Court in AIR 1987 SC 1100, titled Dr. Mrs. Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai and another, held that Section 125(1)(d) imposes

liability on children to maintain their parents who are unable to maintain themselves. Relevant paras of the judgment are as under:-

 “5. Sub-section (1) of Section 125 confers power on the Magistrate of the First Class to order a person to make a monthly allowance

for the maintenance of some of his close relations like wife, children, father and mother under certain circumstances. It has been observed

by this Court in Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi, (1975) 2 SCC 385: (AIR 1975 SC 83) that the object of Section 125, Cr.P.C. is to provide a

summary remedy to save dependents from destitution and vagrancy and thus to serve a social purpose.

There can be no doubt that it is the moral obligation of a son or a daughter to maintain his or her parents. It is not desirable that even

though a son or a daughter has sufficient means, his or her parents would starve. Apart from any law, the Indian Society casts a duty on the

children of a person to maintain their parents if they are not in a position to maintain themselves. It is also their duty to look after their

parents when they become old and infirm.

After giving our best consideration to the question, we are of the view that Section 125(1)(d) has imposed a liability on both the son and

the daughter to maintain their father or mother who is unable to maintain himself or herself. Section 488 of the old Criminal Procedure

Code did not contain a. provision like Clause (d) of Section 125(1). The legislature in enacting Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 thought it

wise to provide for the maintenance of the parents of a person when such parents are unable to maintain themselves. The purpose of such

enactment is to enforce social obligation and we do not think whey the daughters should be excluded from such obligation to maintain their

parents.â€​

In (1996) 4 SCC 479, titled Kirtikant D. Vadodaria Versus State of Gujarat and another, obligation of son to maintain his father, who is unable to

maintain himself, was held to be unquestionable. Relevant portion from the judgment is extracted below:-

“15. The point in controversy before us however is whether a ‘stepmother’ can claim maintenance from the stepson or not, having

regard to the aims and objects of Section 125 of the Code. While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125

of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents

etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a

moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in

distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions

contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and

starvation. Having regard to this special object the provisions of Section 125 of the Code have to be given a liberal construction to fulfil

and achieve this intention of the legislature. Consequently, to achieve this objective, in our opinion, a childless stepmother may claim

maintenance from her stepson provided she is a widow or her husband, if living, is also incapable of supporting and maintaining her. The

obligation of the son to maintain his father, who is unable to maintain himself, is unquestionable……………â€​

3(iv). Simple denial by the appellant that he is not earning Rs.1000/- to Rs.1200/- per day will not help him in escaping his responsibility to maintain his

father. The evidence adduced on record proves that the original petitioner, who has no source of income, has been ill-treated by his sons and has not

been provided any maintenance. The appellant even though may be earning his livelihood as Labourer, still cannot circumvent his responsibility to

maintain his old and infirm father. The quantum of maintenance fixed by the learned Family Court @ Rs.2500/-per month each against both the sons

cannot be said to be excessive considering the modern trend of wages and the cost of living.

In view of the above, there is no merit in the instant appeal and the same is dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.