S.125 CrPC | 'Pious Duty Of Son To Maintain His Old Aged Father': Jharkhand High Court Upholds Family Court's Maintenance Order

Justice Subhash Chand observed, “Though from the evidence adduced by both the parties, it is found that the father is having some agricultural land yet is not able to cultivate the same. He also depends upon his elder son, with whom, he resides. The father has given the share in whole property to his younger son Manoj Sao equally but he has not been maintained by his younger son for more than 15 years. Even if for the sake of argument, the father earns something; it is pious duty of a son to maintain his old aged father.”

Further underscoring the importance of parents shown in Hinduism, Justice Chand quoted, “If your Parents are confident you feel confident, if they are sad you will feel sad. Father is your God and Mother is your Nature. They are the seed you are the Sapling. No whatever good or bad they have in them, even inactive, will become a tree in you. So you inherit your parent's good and bad both. A person carries some debts due to being born and that includes debt (Spiritual) of Father and Mother which we have to repay.”

The above ruling came in a Criminal Revision petition preferred against the impugned order passed by a Family Court allowing the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the petitioner to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.3000/- to the opposite party No.2-father.

In this case, a maintenance application was filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the father against his younger son. The father asserted that he had two sons and that his younger son exhibited quarrelsome and cruel behavior, including physical assaults.

The father claimed that he had transferred his land to both sons on 21.02.1994, dividing the total area of 3.983/5 acres equally between them. While the elder son, Pradip Kumar, was providing financial support, the younger son, Manoj Kumar, allegedly neglected the father, verbally abused him, and physically assaulted him.

The father informed the court that Manoj Kumar operated a shop in the village, earning Rs.50,000/- per month, and had an additional income of Rs.2,00,000/- per annum from agricultural land. The father also stated that in 2021, he was assaulted and injured by his younger son, necessitating medical attention. Consequently, the father sought a maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month from Manoj Kumar.

The trial court passed the impugned judgment in favor of the father, granting the maintenance application and ordering the son to pay Rs.3000/- per month in maintenance to the father.

Aggrieved, the instant Criminal Revision was preferred by the son contending that the maintenance amount granted by the lower court did not align with his income. He emphasized that the petitioner had not submitted an affidavit disclosing his assets and liabilities, hindering the court's ability to make an informed decision. The son also highlighted that the father, as indicated by the witness statements, earned a livelihood from agriculture and brick kiln activities.

The Court framed the following points of determination:

(1) Whether the finding recorded by the learned Court below on the point of determination whether the father is unable to maintain himself and the son has been neglecting to maintain his father is based on proper appreciation of evidence?

(2) Whether the quantum of the maintenance is itself proportionate in view of the income and liability of the son, the petitioner herein?

The court observed that the evidence presented by the opposing parties was not aligned with the pleadings. Furthermore, the court pointed out that in Manoj Saw's response to the show cause notice, he did not mention his father owning a brick kiln; instead, he stated that his father earned from agricultural land.

The court also highlighted that neither Manoj Kumar nor any witness on his behalf stated that Manoj Saw was supporting his father. On the contrary, it was acknowledged by all witnesses, including Manoj Saw, that his father had given him two acres of land for cultivation.

The court further highlighted that Manoj Saw, as per his own statement, resided in a house built by his father, comprising 12 rooms, where he ran a grocery shop. This property was reportedly shared equally between the two sons.

Based on the evidence from both parties, the court found that the father had distributed both the agricultural land and residential property equally between his two sons, and he was also residing with his elder son, and his younger son had not been maintaining him.

The Court found it relevant to give certain quotations from the scriptures to show the importance of the parents, which was:

“ “उपाȯात्दश आचायŊ : आचायाŊणां शतं िपता | सहŷं तुिपतॄन्माता गौरवेण अितįरljते ||”

“In veneration, the Preceptor excels ten Sub-teachers; the Father a hundred preceptors, and the Mother a thousand Fathers.”

In Mahabharat, the Yaksh asked to Yudhisthira:

“What is weightier than the earth itself? What is higher than the heavens? What is fleeter than the wind? And what is more numerous than grass?

Yudhisthira answered:

'the mother is weightier than the earth; the father is higher than the heaven; the mind is fleeter than the wind; and our thoughts are more numerous than grass.'”

In view of the analysis of the evidence on record adduced on behalf of both the parties, the first point of determination was decided by the Court in the favour of the father and against the son.

Coming to the second point of determination, the Court pointed that although the income of younger son was not assessed by the Trial Court, yet from all the sources tentatively, it can be assessed Rs.30,000/- per month and out of the same, the trial Court had directed only 1/10th portion i.e. Rs.3,000/- per month payable to the father, who had given birth to the son and brought up him and has also given the house, which he had built comprising 12 rooms, two acres of agricultural land.

The Court held, “The maintenance amount of Rs.3000/- cannot be said to be disproportionate. Accordingly, second point of determination is also decided in favour of the father and against the son.”

“In view of the findings recorded by the learned Court below on the above point of determination, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below needs no interference, accordingly, this Criminal Revision deserves to be dismissed,” the Court held, accordingly, dismissing the Criminal Revision and affirming impugned order passed by the court below.

Case No.: Criminal Revision No.535 of 2023

Case Title: Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Sao vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 7

Appearance:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, APP

For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Abhilash Kumar, Advocate

Click Here To Read / Download Judgement