Skip to content


Atar SaIn JaIn Vs. Amir Singh Jain - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily;Criminal
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revision Appeal No. 312 of 1980
Judge
Reported in1982CriLJ211; 1981(3)DRJ87
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 125
AppellantAtar SaIn Jain
RespondentAmir Singh Jain
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code - section 125. in an application under section 125, petitioner must prove that he is unable to maintain himself. - - the trial court dismissed the petition under section 125 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to prove that he was unable to maintain himself. (3) held that it is well settled that the object of these summary proceedings given in the code for maintenance is to prevent vagrancy and that object is achieved by directing provision of lodging, food and clothing to the wife, the children who are minor or the parents as the case may be.(1) amir singh jain filed a petition under section 125 of the criminal procetiure code (the code) for maintenance from his son attar sain jain on the allegations that he is unable to maintain himself. before the filing of this petition amir singh jain was residing with attar singh jain. (2) amir singh jain filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts, against his grandson, son of attar sain jain and his daughter- in-law, wife of attar sain jain. after the filing of the suit amir singh started living with his eldest son anup siagh jain. the trial court dismissed the petition under section 125 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to prove that he was unable to maintain himself. amir singh jain filed a revision which was accepted by the additional sessions.....
Judgment:

(1) Amir Singh Jain filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procetiure Code (the Code) for maintenance from his son Attar Sain Jain on the allegations that he is unable to maintain himself. Before the filing of this petition Amir Singh Jain was residing with Attar Singh Jain.

(2) Amir Singh Jain filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts, against his grandson, son of Attar Sain Jain and his daughter- in-law, wife of Attar Sain Jain. After the filing of the suit Amir Singh started living with his eldest son Anup Siagh Jain. The trial court dismissed the petition under Section 125 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to prove that he was unable to maintain himself. Amir Singh Jain filed a revision which was accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge. The Additional Sessions Judge held that Amir Singh Jain requires rupees four hundred per month for his maintenance. He has apportioned this amount amongst the four sons of Amir Singh and has directed Attar Sain Jain, petitioner herein to pay Rs. 100 p.m. as his share towards the maintenance of his father. Hence this revision by Attar Sain Jain.

(3) Held that it is well settled that the object of these summary proceedings given in the Code for maintenance is to prevent vagrancy and that object is achieved by directing provision of lodging, food and clothing to the wife, the children who are minor or the parents as the case may be. However, there are two conditions. The first is that the person who has neglected to look after any one of the categories of the persons concerned as noticed above, must have means to do so and secondly, the wife, minor children or the parents must be unable to maintain themselves.

(4) Considering the facts of this case it was held that the respondent herein has been unable to prove either of the two conditions. The revision petition filed by the petitioner herein was accepted and the order of the Additional Sessions Judge whereby he directed the petitioner herein to pay Rs. 100.00 P.M. as his share towards the maintenance of his father was set aside. The judgment of the learned Magistrate whereby he dismissed the petition of Amir Singh Jain was, however, restored.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //