This order dismissed a criminal revision filed by a son challenging a Family Court order awarding maintenance to his parents, holding that the lower court was entitled not to consider the parents' property ownership during the initial enquiry.
The revision petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1584 OF 2010
ORDER:
1 The order dated 09.08.2010 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No340 of 2010in M.C.No.189 of 2008 is questioned by the petitioner who is none other than the son of the respondents 2 and 3 herein.
2 The facts in brief are that the respondents approached the Family Court and filed the said M.C. under section 125 of Cr.P.C. and after leading evidence, awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.2,500/-p.m. to the respondents 2 and 3 respectively by order dated 19.01.2010. The said order was questioned by filing Criminal Petition No.2078 of 2010 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter the petitioner filed the present petition under section 127 of Cr.P.C stating that the respondents i.e. his parents are having own house property and as such the said amount of maintenance need not be paid to them. However, as stated supra, the same is dismissed by the order impugned in this revision.
3 When this matter is taken up for hearing, this court was pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings by order dated 09.09.2010, however, on condition of the petitioner depositing entire arrears calculating at the rate of Rs.2,000/- within a period of four weeks from that day to both the respondents 2 and 3 put together on or before 1 0 th of every month. Pursuant to the notice, the parents are represented by an advocate and it is their representation that the said interim order has not been complied with by the petitioner. Mr. Rayalu learned counsel for the petitioner reported no instructions, but vociferously stated that the
parents are having sufficient income and the court below has not taken into consideration the said aspect and as such the petitioner need not pay the said amounts.
4 This court is unable to appreciate the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Apparently, the relationship is not in dispute. Unless the parents are not in dire deed, they would not have approached the court and filed application seeking maintenance. That itself establishes the fact that the parents are unable to maintain themselves. Further, the amounts awarded to the parents are Rs.1,000/- and Rs.2,500/respectively. If really it is a fact that the parents are having the said house property, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said fact should have been brought to the notice of the Family Court during the course of enquiry and had the said fact been brought to the notice of the trial court, the trial court would have taken the same into consideration and passed appropriate orders. But the petitioner instead of bringing the said fact to the notice of the trial court during the course of enquiry, filed the present petition i.e. Crl.M.P.No.340 of 2010 under section 127 of Cr.P.C.
5 Hence and for the above reasons, I see no merits in this revision and accordingly the same is dismissed.
kvsn 25.01.2011
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to set aside the Family Court order that awarded maintenance to the petitioner's parents under Section 127 Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner (Son of Respondents 2 and 3)
Respondent 2 (Mother)
Respondent 3 (Father)
Justice Kuppuswami Janardhanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
