The Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court in the case Jagannath Bhagnath Bedke v. Haribhau Jagannath Bedke observed while deciding a writ petition related to maintenance said that courts should not get too technical while deciding petitions under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
It was stated by the court that the said provision is made for the immediate support, that too financial in nature of a person, so that he or she can survive.
The bench comprising of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi observed while dealing with the petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging order of the lower court dismissing the petitioner’s maintenance application.
An application was filled in July, 2014 by the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar seeking maintenance from his son (respondent). It was claimed by the petitioner that he had no source of income and was unable to work due to old age. However, his application was allowed and son was directed to pay five thousand rupees per month. A revision petition was filled by the son and the Additional Session Judge dismissed the original application. the father filled the current petition challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge.
It was claimed by the petitioner that he has no source of income and cannot work due to his old age.
In the present case, it was claimed by the respondent that the petitioner sold his agricultural land for 750000 rupees although it has been shown less in the sale deed. However, he claimed that his father has vices which have caused difference between his parents and they are not residing together. It was alleged by the son that his father is demanding money just to fulfill his vices.
It was observed that the courts examined the facts and observed that the revisional court dismissed the application on a technical basis that the petitioner received some amount in the from the sale and his so-called admission that by doing labour work he is getting wages of Rs.20/- per day. Therefore, the question is whether there is a source of income sufficient for the father to sustain. It was stated by the court that the revisional court could at most reduce the maintenance amount but not discard the maintenance order entirely. It is the responsibility of son and has to maintain his father and he cannot impose the condition that the father stay with him to pay maintenance.
The court observed that the approach taken by the revisional Court appears to be too hyper technical and when it comes to petitions under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the Courts cannot be so hyper technical in their approach taken. Accordingly, the court set aside the order of the revisional court and granted a reduced amount of maintenance of three thousand rupees per month to the father.