- (1.) The instant revision petition under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 21-11-2001 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, directing the petitioner-son to pay maintenance to the respondent-mother Smt. Sunder Bai @ Rs. 250/- per month.
(2.) The application of a mother to maintain her by the son is personal, legal, and absolute in character and arises from the very existence of relationship between the parties. But, there are significant aspects in the instant case, which deserve to be noticed.
(3.) The respondent Smt. Sunder Bai had married to one Dalla. From the said wedlock, she gave birth to the petitioner Bhagwati. While the petitioner was a child, . the couple separated. While Bhagwati was aged about two years, he was taken away by his father Dalla. He contract another marriage with one Smt. Nanibai. The fact remains that the petitioner Bhagwati never stayed with the respondent Smt. Sunder Bal. He was brought up by Smt. Nanibai. It is alleged that Smt. Sunder Bal had started living with another person. It is also alleged that Smt. Sunder Bai gave birth to a male child namely Himmat Singh. It is admitted that respondent Smt. Sunder Bai is staying with her second son Himmat Singh. It has also been admitted that during the lifetime of Dalla, the respondent Smt. Sunder Bai never claimed maintenance from him. There is also material on record to show that Smt. Sunder Bai is working on a piao and earning about Rs. 1200/- per month. From the narration of these facts, it emerges that the petitioner Bhagwati was never brought up by the respondent Smt. Sunder Bal and she is living with her another son Himmat Singh. She is having her own income. Thus, it cannot be said that she has no means for her maintenance. These material aspects have been glossed over by the learned Judge of the Family Court.;