Bombay High Court
Smt. Anjanabai Wd/O. Rambhau ... vs Manohar Rambhau Sonkusare on 29 January, 2018
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 APL310.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 310 OF 2017
APPLICANTS : Smt. Anjanabai Wd/o Rambhau Sonkusare
Aged about 80 years, Occu. Nil
R/o Balaji Ward, Chandrapur,
Tah. & Dist. Chandrapur.
VERSUS
NON-APPLICANT : Manohar Rambhau Sonkusare
Aged about 47 years, Occu. Private service,
R/o Bhanapeth Ward, Chandrapur,
Tah. & Dist. Chandrapur.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. H. N. Potbhare, Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Akansha Wanjari, Advocate for the non-applicant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : JANUARY 29, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the parties.
2. Heard Mr. H. N. Potbhare, the learned counsel for the
applicant and Ms. Akansha Wanjari, the learned counsel for the non-
applicant.
2 APL310.17.odt
3. Unfortunate parents more than 80 years of age, were
required to file an application under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure against their son Manohar, the present non-
applicant. The application was registered as Misc. Criminal
Application No. 68/2009. The said application was contested by the
non-applicant. It was the case of the non-applicant that there is a
property dispute between him and his parents. He submitted that
the said property dispute is pending before this Court. He further
submitted before the Court below that if the parents are ready to
withdraw their appeal pending before this court, then only he is
liable to pay the maintenance to his parents.
4. The learned trial Magistrate has considered the aforesaid
contention of the non-applicant/son. It is an admitted position that
there is no other available mean for sustainment for the aged
parents. It was also found that the non-applicant/son was working
in a printing press and his monthly salary is Rs.5,000/-. Considering
all these aspects, the learned trial Magistrate granted maintenance at
the rate of Rs.750/- per month. Being dis-satisfied with the said
judgment, the non-applicant/son filed revision before the Sessions
Court. It was registered as Criminal Revision No. 125/2011. The
3 APL310.17.odt
learned Revisional Court allowed the revision filed by the son and set
aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate on the ground that
since, the applicant has sold out the property in respect of which the
dispute is pending before this Court, that means that she is having
sufficient means to maintain herself and there is no documentary
evidence on record that the son has neglected the present applicant.
5. It is the duty of every son to maintain his aged parents.
Even otherwise, the applicant, who is governed by Hindu Law, it is
the pious duty of a son to maintain his parents.
6. It is not in dispute that the applicant is aged about 80
years and she is not having any source of income. The applicant was
neglected by her son. The learned Magistrate has considered the
available evidence, to reach to the conclusion that the applicant was
neglected by the non-applicant.
7. Admittedly, the non-applicant is working in a printing
press, having salary or Rs.5,000/- per month. In view of that, the
quantum of Rs.750/- as granted by the learned Magistrate can also
not be said that is on higher side.
4 APL310.17.odt
8. (i) In that view of the matter, the criminal application is
allowed.
(ii) The judgment and order passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Criminal Revision
Application No 125/2011 on 14.3.2017 is hereby set aside.
(iii) The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Chandrapur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 68/2009,
on 05.11.2011 is hereby restored.
9. With this, the criminal application is allowed and
disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE
Diwale
