GOPINATH GOVIND TELI Vs. SUNDARABAI GOVIND TELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent waives service.

(2.) Both these petitions take exception to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa dated 12/10/2017 pursuant to which the revision filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class directing him to either deposit Rs.5,000.00 in the account of the respondent or alternatively to provide medical care and food in that amount was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and modifying the order to the extent of directing him to deposit L5,000.00 in the account of the respondent. The second petition which was disposed off by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was at the instance of the respondent/original applicant challenging the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class directing the applicant herein to deposit the amount or alternatively to provide medical care and food in that amount to her was allowed by modifying the order to direct the applicant to deposit Rs.5,000.00 in her account and quashing the part of the order directing the applicant to provide medical care and food articles costing Rs.5,000.00. In sum and substance, both these orders were required to be challenged by a solitary petition but for the reasons best within the knowledge of the petitioner, he has chosen to file two separate petitions to challenge these orders which in sum and substance direct him to deposit Rs.5,000.00 in the account of the respondent and quashing the order directing him to provide medical care and food to the extent of L5,000.00 to her. Hence, both these petitions would be dealt with by this common judgment which would squarely deal with the issue in both the petitions which is common to them and in which the parties would be referred to as the petitioner and the respondent for brevity's sake hereinafter.

(3.) It was the contention of Shri S. Taleigaonkar, learned Advocate for the petitioner that a suit was filed by the respondent with her other children against the petitioner for declaration and other reliefs as early as in 2010 and the application for maintenance moved by her was an outcome of the said suit against the petitioner. She had clearly admitted in her maintenance application that she had other children besides the petitioner namely two more sons and two married daughters who could maintain her considering her old age and medical condition. The petitioner herein in his reply to the maintenance application had clearly shown his readiness and willingness to maintain the respondent at his house and to provide for her food, medicines, clothes, etc. and that she should shift to his residence to facilitate for providing all these benefits to her. He had even assured to engage a person to take her care during her entire remaining lifetime and on that premise had pressed for the dismissal of the maintenance application.