Trace Your Case

Categories
Maintenance of Parents and Children

Selva Saroja v. Sasinathan (1989) Cr LJ 2032

T.P.S.H. SELVA SAROJA V. T.P.S.H. SASINATHANA

Selva Saroja v. Sasinathan (1989) Cr LJ 2032

ISSUE:

  • Whether a mother is responsible for maintenance of her daughter who had attained majority and who does not suffer from any physical or mental abnormality or injury because of which she was not able to maintain herself.

RULE:

  • Section 125 of CR.P.C. explains that a child, who had attained majority (not being a married daughter) can claim maintenance only if she is unable to maintain itself because of any physical or mental abnormality or injury.

FACTS:

  • The petitioner is the mother of the respondent. The petitioner’s husband also the father of the respondent, died necessitating the petitioner taking over as Managing Director of M/s. T.P. Sokkalal Beedi Factory Private Limited, Tirunelvelli.
  • Due to misunderstandings between the mother and the respondent (31 years) they have been living apart for almost two years.
  • The respondent filed claiming maintenance for herself from her mother before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
  • The disputes aroused when the petitioner and Thomas Fernando, a chartered accountant, moved closely. Respondent did not like Thomas interfering in their family matter and objected because of his interference she was ill-treated and she was driven out of the house.
  • The respondent states that she has no source of income and she has been suffering for her livelihood and clothing, by staying separately for over two years.
  • The petitioners contended that as per S. 125(1)(c) Cr.P.C., a child, who had attained majority (not being a married daughter) can claim maintenance only if it is unable to maintain itself because of any physical or mental abnormality or injury.

HELD:

  • The Madras High court held that the word ‘injury’ used in
    S. 125(1) (c) Cr.P.C. will have to be read in the context of inability to maintain, which does not require recourse to the definition of injury in the Indian Penal Code.
  • That the respondent cannot invoke the provisions of S. 125 Cr.P.C. to claim maintenance from her mother, the petitioner.
  • As the result, the petition is allowed and the proceedings on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelvelli are quashed.
  • Petition allowed.
Categories
Maintenance of Parents and Children

Mahendra Kumar Gaikwad v. Gulabbhai 2001 Cr LJ 2111 (Bom)

MAHENDRAKUMAR GAIKWAD V. GULABBAI RAMRAO GAIKWAD

Mahendra Kumar Gaikwad v. Gulabbhai 2001 Cr LJ 2111 (Bom)

ISSUE:

  • Whether a mother can claim maintenance from her son even if her husband is alive but unable to maintain?

RULE:

  • Parents can claim maintenance from their children if they are in no position to take care of themselves, and even if one parent is earning yet not sufficient enough to maintain both of them then they claim maintenance from children.

FACTS:

  • Respondents No.1 and No.2 are the mother and father of the petitioner. The daughter of the respondents is already married. Another son of the respondents is married and has got a job. The youngest son of the respondents was taking education when the petition for grant of maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondents.
  • Respondent No.1is an old lady and respondent No.2 is father is a diabetic and has no other source of income besides the pension of respondent No.2.They are required to spend on the education of their youngest son.
  • The respondents filed an application of maintenance on the grounds that the petitioner is a government employee with an inflated paycheck and his wife also earns with an attractive paycheck has refused and neglected to maintain his aged parents who are unable to maintain themselves.
  • The respondents, therefore, claim a monthly allowance for their maintenance from their eldest son under Section 125(1) (d) of Cr. P.C Code.
  • The petitioners contested that respondent No. 2, being the husband of respondent No. 1, is primarily responsible to maintain respondent No. 1. Therefore, respondent No. 1 is not entitled to get maintenance from the present petitioner. Respondent No. 2 has sufficient means to maintain himself and his wife and, therefore, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 cannot bring any action in the Court of law for grant of maintenance.
  • The petitioner has further contended that the respondents have two more sons and one of them is earning a substantial income.
  • After hearing both the sides and taking into consideration the evidence brought on record, the Judge, Family Court, partly allowed the application filed by the respondents for maintenance and consequently, the present petitioner has been directed to pay a monthly allowance of Rs. 200/- to the respondent mother by way of her maintenance from the date of order.
  • Petitioner filed a criminal revision application.
  • The petitioner argued that respondent No. 2 is the husband of respondent No. 1 and, this being the position; it is his primary responsibility to maintain his wife i.e. respondent No. 1.
  • And has advanced a proposition that, so long as the husband is alive, it is his primary responsibility to maintain his wife and, therefore, the present petitioner cannot be compelled to pay maintenance to the respondent No. 1, though she happens to be his mother.
  • The respondents contended that The petitioner is since beginning complaining that he is not under moral or legal obligation to maintain his mother on the ground that respondent No. 2, who happens to be her husband, is alive.
  • He is not at all ready to spare anything for his mother. He is laboring under the misconception that so long as his father is alive, it is his duty to maintain respondent No. 1, who happens to be his wife. From this conduct of the petitioner, one can draw a legitimate inference of refusal.

HELD:

  • Learned Judge, Family Court, has awarded a very reasonable amount of maintenance to the mother. Admittedly, the petitioner is getting a net income of Rs. 3.000/- per month. He also gets income by way of the rent of the house. So far as his family is concerned, there is financial assistance to him by his wife.
  • The Judge, Family Court, has also taken into consideration that respondent No. 1 is getting financial assistance from her another earning son intermittently.
  • Under the circumstance, it cannot be said that the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Judge, Family Court, is harsh and beyond the paying capacity of the petitioner.
  • The court said that the impugned order of maintenance passed by the Judge, Family Court, in favor of the mother, does not at all suffer from any illegality.
  • The criminal revision application filed by the petitioner stands dismissed.
  • The petitioner has to pay Rs. 1000/- to respondent No. 1 by way of the costs of this criminal revision application.
Categories
Maintenance of Parents and Children

Vijaya Manohar Arbat vs Kashi Rao Rajaram  AIR 1987 SC 1100

VIJAYA MANOHAR ARBAT V. KASHI RAO RAJARAM SAWAI

Vijaya Manohar Arbat vs Kashi Rao Rajaram AIR 1987 SC 1100

ISSUE:

  • Whether parents can claim maintenance from daughter?

RULE:

  • That section 125(1)(d) has imposed liability on both the son and the daughter to maintain their father or mother who is unable to maintain himself or herself.

FACTS:

  • The appellant Mrs.Vijaya Arbat is a medical practitioner and daughter of respondent No.1.
  • Respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Court, claiming maintenance from the appellant, his daughter, at the rate of Rs.500 per month on the ground that he was unable to maintain himself.
  • The appellants argued that the maintainability of the application on the ground that section 125(1)(d) Cr.P.C. does not entitle a father to claim maintenance from his daughter and the objection was overruled by the magistrate and held maintainable.
  • Aggrieved by the order the appellant moved to the Bombay High Court.
  • The High Court affirmed the order of the learned Magistrate and held that the application of a father for maintenance who is unable to maintain himself is maintainable against his married daughter having sufficient means. In that view of the matter, the High Court dismissed the revisional application of the appellant.
  • Appellant filed a special leave petition.

HELD:

  • The Supreme Court held that a daughter after her marriage does not cease to be a daughter of the father or mother.
  • That section 125(1)(d) has imposed liability on both the son and the daughter to maintain their father or mother who is unable to maintain himself or herself.
  • The purpose of such enactment is to enforce the social obligation and the court can’t think of any reason why the daughter should be excluded from such obligation to maintain their parent.
  • Appeal dismissed.