Delhi High Court
Rakesh Dhawan vs Om Prakash Dhawan on 5 March, 2018
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 05.03.2018
+ CRL.REV.P.105/2017
RAKESH DHAWAN ..... Petitioner
versus
OM PRAKASH DHAWAN ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.C. Pathak, Advocate along with
petitioner in person
For the Respondent : Mr. Jatin Rajput with Mr. Sandeep Kumar,
Advocates
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
05.03.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CRL.REV.P.105/2017 & CRL.M.A.1803/2017 (stay) & CRL.M.A.
1805/2017 (delay in filing for 41 days)
1. The petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 17.10.2016
passed by the Family Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. awarding
maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month to the respondent.
2. Respondent is the father of the petitioner and aged 78 years. As
per the respondent, he is receiving old age pension of Rs.1500/- per
month and is presently getting rent of approximately Rs.1265/- from
the two shops in his possession.
3. Petitioner has five shops in his possession, out of which three
shops have been rented out. It is contended by the petitioner that he is
receiving rent of Rs.625/- from the said three shops. Two of the shops
are in his possession; one of which is being used by his wife to run a
beauty parlour and in other shop the petitioner has opened his office
of property dealer.
4. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case the
Trial Court has awarded only an amount of Rs.1500/- per month to be
paid to the respondent, who is the father of the petitioner.
5. Admittedly, at this age the respondent who is aged 78 years
would not be in a position to seek any employment or vocation to
augment his income. He is receiving a meagre sum of Rs. 2765/- (i.e.
Rs.1500/- as old age pension and Rs.1265/- as rent from the shops in
his possession). The parties are living in Delhi. In today's day and
age, a meagre sum of Rs.1265/- would not be sufficient for
subsistence.
6. The petitioner is a young person and admittedly engaged in his
own business. Apart from this, his wife is also earning. A direction
to the petitioner to maintain his father and to pay a meagre sum of
Rs.1500/- per month is not a direction which calls for any
interference.
7. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on a
decision of the Supreme Court in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria vs State of
Gujarat & Anr.: 1996 (2) Crimes 119 (SC) to contend that
proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are not to be used to punish or
harass someone, is misplaced. Said judgment is not applicable to the
facts of the present case. The Supreme Court was dealing with a
dispute between son and step mother and was prima facie of the view
that the claimant has proceeded against the step son with a view to
harass and punish him.
8. In the present case, the respondent has income of Rs.2765/-
which is clearly not sufficient to maintain himself. A claim, under
Section 125 Cr.P.C., by a father who has no source of income, cannot
be said to be a claim to harass or punish the petitioner.
9. The other judgment in Attar Singh Jain vs. Amir Singh Jain:
1982 Crl. L.J. 211 as well as Santosh Malhotra vs. Ved Prakash
Malhotra & Ors.: 2012 (2) JCC 1325 are also not applicable in the
facts of the present case. The respondent admittedly lives alone and
does not have any other family member to take care of him.
10. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner that respondent
had contracted another marriage and from there he had three sons,
firstly is disputed by the Respondent, secondly the said contention is
irrelevant, in view of the fact that respondent is admittedly living
alone and there is no other family member to take care of him.
Petitioner is the son of the respondent and accordingly has an
obligation to maintain the respondent.
11. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the impugned order
and the direction to the petitioner to pay Rs.1500/- per month to his
father/respondent.
12. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed. Pending
applications are also disposed of accordingly.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
March 5, 2018/ns
