Order.- In this case, an old and indigent mother had to face the unfortunate ordeal of an opposition from and apparently affluent son when she moved for maintenance under section 125, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioner is the first counter-petitioner in M.C.No. 39 of 1976 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kottarakkara. The 1st respondent is the mother of the petitioner. The second respondent is his brother. Besides the above persons, the 1st respondent has another son and a daughter. Going by the allegations in M.C.No. 39 of 1976, the present petitioner is getting a daily income of Rs. 100 out of his textile shop. He has also got immovable properties yielding an annual income of Rs. 5,000. The 2nd respondent has invested Rs. 2,000 on a small trade. Another son of the first respondent, not on record, is a T.B. Patient and as such not in a position to earn a livelihood of his own. The daughter is depending for her maintenance on her husband. The first respondent, who is an old woman aged seventy-five is stated to be neglected by her children and is unable to maintain herself. She claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 175 from the petitioner and Rs. 25 against the 2nd respondent. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, on an appraisal of the evidence adduced by the 1st respondent and the petitioner, allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 60. The petitioner was directed to pay at the rate of Rs. 50 per month and the 2nd respondent at the rate of Rs. 10 per month. The 2nd respondent did not contest the petition and he is ex parte here also. 3. The main contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no justification in directing him to pay at the rate of Rs. 50 whereas the 2nd respondent is directed to pay only at the rate of Rs. 10 and no liability has been imposed on the two children who are not made parties to the proceedings. According to the petitioner, it was incumbent on the first respondent to have claimed maintenance against all her children, as the liability to maintain the parents vests equally on all of them. 10 and no liability has been imposed on the two children who are not made parties to the proceedings. According to the petitioner, it was incumbent on the first respondent to have claimed maintenance against all her children, as the liability to maintain the parents vests equally on all of them. He contended that the petition under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code was not maintainable in law in the absence of the remaining children on record and it has to be set aside on that sole ground. 4. Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (old Code), provided maintenance only to neglected wives and children. Section 125(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (new Code), made a deviation and extended the benefit to the father and mother. In the light of the above provision, if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the First Class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance to such father or mother at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct. 5. Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, fixes a ceiling on the quantum of maintenance to be sanctioned and the limit is fixed at Rs. 500. The section does not stipulate that all the children of the claimant should be made parties to the petition or that the claim should be made against all of them. It also does not say that the amount required for the maintenance of the claimant should be divided equally among the children and the person on record should be asked to pay only so much amount as would fall to his share. On the other hand, stress is made on the sufficiency of means of the person against whom the claim is made. In other words, the liability to maintain the claimant is dependent on the means of the person concerned. It may be that when the claim is made jointly against two or more persons, it is open to the Court to fix the liability of each of such persons in proportion to his means. In other words, the liability to maintain the claimant is dependent on the means of the person concerned. It may be that when the claim is made jointly against two or more persons, it is open to the Court to fix the liability of each of such persons in proportion to his means. But it is not incumbent on the Court to decide the liability of any of the persons taking into consideration that there are other persons who can also be proceeded against. 6. The parties in this case are Hindus. Reference may, in this connection be made to section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. Section 20 (1) reads: “Subject to the provisions of this section a Hindu is bound, during his or her lifetime, to maintain his or her legitimate or illegitimate children and his or her aged or infirm parents.” Sub-section (3) states that the obligation of a person to maintain his or her aged or infirm parent extends in so far as the parent is unable to maintain himself or herself out of his or her own earnings or other property. Section 23 deals with the amount of maintenance. Section 23(1) states that it is in the discretion of the Court to deter nine whether any, or if so what maintenance shall be awarded under the Act. Under section 23(2), in determining the amount of maintenance to aged or infirm parents, regard shall be had to: (a) the position and status of the parties; (b) the reasonable wants of the claimant; (c) if the claimant is living separately, whether the claimant is justified in doing so; (d) the value of the claimant’s property and any income derived from such property, or from the claimant’s own earnings or from any other source; (e) the number of persons entitled to maintenance under the Act. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, applies to all persons irrespective of their personal law. But in working out the details, it will be advantageous to bear in mind the above referred provisions as they are based on principles which can be of general application. It is not made out that the order passed contravenes the above provision. 7. Section 125, as already stated, does not say that the claimant should bring, on record all the persons against whom’ he or she is entitled to claim maintenance. It is not made out that the order passed contravenes the above provision. 7. Section 125, as already stated, does not say that the claimant should bring, on record all the persons against whom’ he or she is entitled to claim maintenance. The liability being dependent on the means of the person concerned, the claimant may choose those persons who, according to him or her, is having sufficient means. The proceedings being of a summary nature, the Court also is not bound to enquire whether there are other persons against whom the liability to maintain is cast under the personal law and is not bound to insist that such persons should be brought on record so that the proportionate liability of each of such persons can be fixed. In fact a neglected parent who seeks maintenance against a particular son or daughter leaving out others would be taking a risk inasmuch as the maintenance that would be ordered would be dependent on the means of the person actually on record and the means of the other children would not be taken into account whereas if all the children are impleaded, the parent concerned may get more, taking into account the sufficiency of means of all the persons concerned. If the person against whom maintenance is claimed feels that under the personal law of the parties or under general law, others are also bound to share the responsibility, it is upto him to pursue to his remedies if any, against such person and claim contribution. Section 125 as such does not provide for such contingencies. 8. Taking the above view, I hold that the Courts below have not acted either irregularly or illegally in assessing the means of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent or in fixing the quantum of maintenance due from the petitioner. There are no sufficient grounds for invoking the inherent powers of this Court for interfering with the order passed by the trial Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed.