Facts
The respondents, the petitioner’s parents, sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandi, allowed their application and directed the petitioner to pay each parent Rs.1,500 per month from the date of filing, after accounting for any interim payments.
Source reference: para. 1The Family Court found that the parents could not maintain themselves and that the petitioner was reasonably capable of supporting them. It considered, among other matters, the petitioner’s disclosed monthly income of Rs.10,000, the parents’ old-age pensions, their work under MGNREGA, and the petitioner’s unsubstantiated claim that he had provided them a house.
Source reference: para. 3The petitioner challenged the maintenance order in revision before the High Court.
Source reference: para. 1Issues
1. Whether the Family Court’s order directing the petitioner to pay Rs.1,500 per month to each parent disclosed an infirmity or illegality warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Source reference: paras. 2, 42. Whether the maintenance awarded was excessive or harsh in light of the parties’ circumstances.
Source reference: para. 4Law Applied
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was the basis for the parents’ maintenance application.
Source reference: para. 1In exercising revisional jurisdiction, the High Court considered whether the Family Court’s findings were perverse, unsupported by the record, or otherwise legally infirm; absent such grounds, interference was not warranted.
Source reference: paras. 2, 4The Court also affirmed that a son is morally and legally bound to support his aged parents.
Source reference: para. 4Reasoning
The High Court found that the petitioner had not shown that the Family Court’s findings were perverse or unsupported by the record.
Source reference: para. 4The evidence and circumstances considered by the Family Court—including the parents’ inability to maintain themselves and their need to work under MGNREGA despite their age—supported the award.
Source reference: para. 3Given the petitioner’s circumstances, the Court held that Rs.1,500 per month for each parent was neither exorbitant nor harsh.
Source reference: para. 4Holding
The High Court held that no ground for revisional interference was established and dismissed the petition, thereby leaving in force the order requiring the petitioner to pay Rs.1,500 per month to each parent.
Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
Source reference: para. 4Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731
Original Court PDF
Kunan RamvsRam Singh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
