Manoj Kumar Modi @ Manoj Modi vs Kailash Ram Modi
2021 Latest Caselaw 3006 Jhar

                                -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Revision No.1632 of 2019

    1.    Manoj Kumar Modi @ Manoj Modi
    2.    Ashok Kumar Modi
          @ Ashok Modi               ......                Petitioners
                            Versus
    Kailash Ram Modi                          ......   Opp. Party
                            ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

    For the Petitioners     : Mr. S. K. Murtty, Advocate
    For the O.P.            :
                            ---------
         The matter was taken up through Video

Conferencing. Learned counsel for the party(s) had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

---------

               th
05/Dated: 19        August, 2021

1. Defect, as pointed out by the office, is hereby, ignored for the time being.

2. The present revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 23.09.2019, passed in Original Maintenance Case No.282 of 2017 by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih, whereby the petitioner No.01 and petitioner No.02 have been directed to pay Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively, per month to the father/ opposite party, as maintenance.

3. The old aged father had approached the Family Court, Giridih under Section 125 of Cr.P.C for getting maintenance from his sons. The Family Court after considering the family background, income etc., ordered the petitioner No.01 and petitioner No.02 to pay Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively, per month to their father/ opposite party, as maintenance.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the opposite party is getting Rs.600/- per month as old age pension from the Government. It has further been submitted that the revisionists have their own family to maintain and support, and as such, the maintenance amount ordered by the Family Court is exorbitant considering their income. On the above fact, prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order dated 23.09.2019.

5. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and perused the impugned order. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the father of the revisionists is suffering from old age ailments like, arthritis, sciatica etc. There is parental property also. The family has sufficient agricultural income and from the said income the father has raised his sons and now the father wants subsistence allowance from his sons and on refusal, the old aged father approached the Family Court under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C for the maintenance.

Considering the quantum of maintenance and findings recorded by the Family Court, Giridih, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

6. Accordingly, the criminal revision application stands dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Chandan/-