JUDGEMENT Shiva Kirti Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Notice has been served upon O. P. Nos.2 and 3 but their counsel has not chosen to appear. 3. It is unfortunate that it is a case between the son and his parents because materials on record show that petitioner has already filed a partition suit claiming share in 1 and a Bigha land available with his father at village home and he is not prepared to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs.150/- each fixed by the revisional court towards maintenance of the father and mother of the petitioner. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner was educated by his parents and got employed as a teacher. There is no scope to dispute the capacity of the petitioner to maintain his parents who had to file a case seeking maintenance. Learned Magistrate awarded Rs.250/- each to both parents but the petitioner succeeded before the revisional court in getting the quantum of maintenance reduced to Rs.150/- each. Thereafter, he preferred this application under Sec.482 of the Cr. P. C. which appears to have been admitted for hearing in December, 1999 and the order under challenge has also been stayed. 5. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that petitioner is under no obligation to grant maintenance to his parents because they have denied him share in the land at village home and he had to file a partition suit. 6. This Court finds no merit in the aforesaid submissions. A civil suit for partition between the petitioner and his father can in no way affect the responsibility, moral as well as legal, cast upon the petitioner as a son to maintain his parents who appear to be in need of such maintenance. 7. This Court finds no illegality in the impugned order. This application is dismissed.