Gourango Chandra Sutar v. Kamal Kanta Sutar And ANR.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...
CRR/46/2024 IA No. CRAN/1/2024 Shri Gourango Chandra Sutar ...Petitioner Vs.
Shri Kamal Kanta Sutar & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. S. K. Golder ... for the Petitioner Mr. Arul Prasanth ...for the Respondents October 01, 2024 [M.A.Mobin] Item No.17 This revisional application is preferred at the behest of the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 24.07.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, South Andaman, Port Blair in connection with the Misc. Case No. 98 of 2023.
By passing the impugned order, learned Family Court awarded interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- per month in favour of the Opposite Party no. 1 for his treatment and Rs. 15,000/- per month for survival of the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 with effect from 01.08.2024.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court the petitioner has preferred this revisional application.
It appears from the earlier orders passed by this Court dated September 6, 2024 where the petitioner has affirmed an affidavit under which he has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 35,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondents.
Today it is contended by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that he is not in a position to pay such amount to the
respondents and it is a hostile discrimination between the two sons in respect of paying the maintenance particularly when the other son is also operating a resort belonging to the father.
It is said by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that no interim maintenance as awarded by the Trial Court has been paid by the petitioner in favour of the respondents till date. It is further said by the learned Counsel that the respondent no.1/father is an acute patient of rental failure and is undergoing dialysis on regular basis. The object and purpose behind Section 125 Cr.P.C. was elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat & Anr. Reported in (1996) 4 SCC 479, wherein the Court observed as under:
"15. While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation..."
The liability to pay maintenance amount to his parents is not just a duty, but a much larger behavioural aspect that encompasses duties, rights, laws, conduct, virtues and so on. The right of parents to expect the children to maintain them is not only a statutory, Constitutional, fundamental, natural or moral right, but also a basic human right.
A plain reading of the law shows that Legislature has intentionally used the word 'any person' thereby definitely meaning that any of the several persons may be chosen and it is not obligatory on the part of the claimant seeking maintenance to name all the persons 'having sufficient means' to be proceeded against, or in other words, it is optional for a claimant to seek an order of maintenance from any of the several persons, if there are more than one, having sufficient means, 'having sufficient means'
is the qualifying phrase for 'any person'
notwithstanding. It appears that there is nothing obligatory either on the part of the Court or on the part of the person seeking relief under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to include all children when the parents are claimants. It appears the claimant has an option to choose. It is not the case that the petitioner is not having means to maintain his parents. Merely because he has other brother, he cannot shift his responsibility to maintain his parents, as it has already been held that to pay maintenance is not just a duty of the petitioner.
The petitioner is duty bound to maintain parents and as such learned Trial Court rightly passed the order in awarding interim maintenance in favour of the respondents but the petitioner has challenged the order of the trial court without giving any penny to the respondents by preferring this revisional application. It appears from the order passed by this Court earlier on 06.09.2024 that the petitioner had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 35,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondents being the father and mother of the petitioner. The Respondent no. 1 was personally present in Court and through his Advocate voluntarily agreed to accept Rs.35,000/- per month as interim maintenance for himself and his wife. It further appears from the said order passed by this court that the petitioner has affirmed an affidavit on 06.09.
pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondents.
The petitioner is directed to pay interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- per month in favour of the respondent with effect from 01.08.2024. Petitioner is directed to pay the amount by the 10th day of every month in advance. The revision petitioner shall continue to pay interim maintenance to the respondents herein, until the case is finally decided by the learned Family Court.
The learned Family Court, is directed to dispose of the main application within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without being influenced or observation as made in this order. The parties are directed that they shall co-operate for final disposal of the main application.
With the above condition, this Revision Petition stands disposed of and the order of interim maintenance stands modified to the extent indicated above.
Parties are to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)