SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE son, appellant herein, who has challenged the order of maintenance passed by learned Family Court in favour of his old mother and father, perhaps forgotten that youth is not permanent and old age takes away all energy physical, mental and intellectual.
(2.) THE respondents No. 2 and 3 in this appeal are the father and mother of appellant. When the appellant refused to maintain them and started living separately, the parents moved an application under under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Family Court No. 1 Jaipur with the averments that they were respectively of the age of 82 and 76 years and because of old age they were incapable to do any work and unable to maintain themselves. THE appellant being their legitimate son was duty bound to provide them bread, clothes, tea, milk, medicines etc. THE appellant is a Government servant and has been receiving salary in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month. THE appellant is capable to provide maintenance to them. Hence he be directed to pay maintenance charges. The appellant filed reply admitting his relationship with the respondents it was stated by him that apart from the appellant there is yet another son of the respondents namely Raj Kumar who is earning money from his jewelry business and has been maintaining the respondents. The respondents moved application in collusion with Raj Kumar, therefore the application deserved to be dismissed. The respondents examined themselves as Pw. 1 and Pw. 2, whereas the appellant appeared as Dw. 1. On hearing final submissions learned Family Court partly allowed the application and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 500/- per month to each respondent with effect from October 7, 2005 along with sum of Rs. 300/- as cost of litigation. We have heard learned counsel and weighed the material on record. The appellant's contention that the respondents are residing with with their another son does not come in the way of respondents' claim. The parents can claim maintenance from a son having income, though living with another son. Whether the parents have more than one son they can claim maintenance from any son. The question of non-discharge of parents' obligation cannot be raised to contest application under section 125 Crpc moved by the parents.
(3.) IT is expected from all the family members to live together with their temperamental and other differences, making a little bit of sacrifice of their individual comforts and surrendering a little bit of their personal rights and liberties to the head of the family and at the same time, each one making his own contribution for the happiness of the whole family. A son is duty bound to discharge his pious obligation to maintain his old aged parents. In the instant case since the appellant ignored his old parents, he has been rightly directed to maintain them. For these reasons, the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. No costs. .;