Ravi Nath Verma, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has questioned the legality of the order dated 12.12.2014 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro Camp at Tenughat in Maintenance Case No. 48 of 2012 whereby the application filed by the present opposite party No. 2 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code") has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/ - per month as maintenance to the opposite party No. 2. A brief reference of the factual position would suffice because essentially the dispute has to be adjudicated with reference to the scope and ambit of Section 125 of the Code. This is a classic case of an old father claiming maintenance against one of his own old son and the factual position as projected by the present opposite party No. 2, who was petitioner before the Principal Judge, Family Court, was that the present opposite party No. 2 after his retirement from C.C.L. from the post of Storekeeper in the year 1995 got financial benefits and from that, he constructed a house in Village -Hosir in the District of Bokaro on an investment of approximately Rs. 50,000/ - and had given Rs. 50,000/ - to his eldest son Mithlesh Prasad, who is petitioner here, for opening a medicine shop so that he can stand on his own leg. The two other sons of the present opposite party No. 2 were then students. Further case is that the present petitioner was earning almost 20,000/ - per month and from that income, he was looking after the entire family but in September, 2011, the petitioner stopped providing foods and other requirements of the opposite party No. 2 though he has been suffering from Cancer and has also other ailments like heart disease and he requires at least Rs. 2,000/ - per month to spend over his medicine and other expenses. It is also stated in the petition that the opposite party No. 2 has no other source of income and he is on the verge of starvation and even he is not in a position to bear the cost of his treatment. Hence, prayed for Rs. 5,000/ - per month as maintenance from the present petitioner.
(2.) AFTER appearance in the court below, the petitioner filed a show cause denying that his father is not capable of maintaining himself and also denied that his father had constructed the house in question rather the same was constructed by his grandfather and that his father earns more than Rs. 3,000/ - per month from rent. He has deposited handsome amount, which he had received on his retirement. It is also stated in the show cause that the present petitioner is earning only Rs. 4,000/ - per month and out of that, he has to give Rs. 3,000/ - every month to his daughter, who is a medical student but the petitioner has admitted the fact that his father has been suffering from Cancer and he has other ailments also. It is also pleaded that two other brothers of this petitioner are also earning handsome amount every month but with some ulterior motive, the father is claiming maintenance from this petitioner only. The court below after considering the pleadings and evidences directed the petitioner to pay the maintenance as indicated above by the order impugned. Hence, this revision.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the order impugned as perverse and bad in law seriously contended that the court below without applying its judicial mind directed the petitioner to pay maintenance ignoring the fact that two other sons of the opposite party No. 2 are equally liable to pay the maintenance. It was also submitted that the court below has violated the mandate of sub -section (1) of Section 125 of the Code and without deciding the sufficiency of income of the present petitioner directed him to pay Rs. 2,000/ - per month as maintenance though the monthly income of the petitioner is only Rs. 4,000/ -.;