JUDGMENT 1. - These three revision petitions have been filed in relation to a common family dispute and thus they are being heard and decided together. 2. Brief facts giving rise to these three revisions are narrated hereunder. 3. The petitioner Amba Lal Kumawat was married to Smt. Pushpa. Kailash was born from the wedlock of Amba Lal Kumawat with Smt. Pushpa. Amba Lal thereafter contracted a second marriage with one Smt. Nirmala from whom three sons viz. Chandra Prakash, Lokesh and Manish were born. 4. Pushpa filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from Amba Lal Kumawat which was allowed and a sum of Rs. 250/- per month was granted to Pushpa as monthly maintenance. Thereafter, Pushpa filed an application for enhancement of the said sum of maintenance which too has been allowed and now it has been directed that she would be entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance. 5. Amba Lal on the other hand filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from his four sons which was rejected by the learned Judge, Family Court in toto. All these three revisions have been filed in relation to aforesaid proceedings which were undertaken in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur. 6. The application filed by Amba Lal claiming maintenance from his sons was rejected in toto vide order dated 15.7.2011 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur whereupon Amba Lal has approached this Court by way of Revision No. 760/2011. 7. The application filed by the petitioner Amba Lal under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for stopping the maintenance of Rs. 250/- granted to Smt. Pushpa was rejected by order 13.2.2008 which has been challenged in Revision No. 216/2008. Pushpa thereafter sought enhancement of the amount of maintenance which has been accepted by the order dated 4.3.2011 and the maintenance payable to Pushpa was enhanced to Rs. 500/- per month. The said order dated 4.3.2011 has been assailed by Amba Lal in Revision No. 252/2011. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner Amba Lal contends that the learned trial Court has committed grave error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner to the extent of respondent No. 1. 500/- per month. The said order dated 4.3.2011 has been assailed by Amba Lal in Revision No. 252/2011. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner Amba Lal contends that the learned trial Court has committed grave error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner to the extent of respondent No. 1. He submits that the petitioner is an old man and a T.B. Patient and as the respondent No. 1 has taken half share of the petitioner's property, he submits that it is the moral and legal obligation of the respondent No. 1 to maintain the petitioner his father. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Kailash submits that the petitioner married twice; first with Smt. Pushpa from whom the respondent No. 1 was born thereafter the petitioner contracted another marriage with Nirmla from whom Chandra Prakash, Lokesh and Manish were born. He submits that after the petitioner contracted a second marriage with Nirmla, he turned out Smt. Pushpa as well as Kailash from his house accordingly they were forced to live with Smt. Pushpas father. Learned counsel submits that Smt. Pushpa and Kailash filed a suit for partition wherein in decree has been passed in their favour but the same has been stayed by this Court in the appeal filed by the petitioner. Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner owns a house and two shops which he has given on rent and all the three sons born from his wedlock with Nirmla are earning handsomely from the said property. He submits that the malafid.es of the petitioner are writ large on the face of the record because in the revision filed before this Court, the relief has only been sought against the respondent Kailash Kumawat. He also submits that in the pleadings filed by the petitioner in the suit for partition particularly in the reply thereof the petitioner has even denied to have fathered the respondent Kailash Kumawat. He thus prays that the revision filed by the petitioner deserves to be rejected. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 4 submits that the respondents No 2 to 4 are living with the petitioner and are already maintaining him, and therefore, there is no need to pass any direction against them for giving any maintenance allowance to the petitioner. 11. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 4 submits that the respondents No 2 to 4 are living with the petitioner and are already maintaining him, and therefore, there is no need to pass any direction against them for giving any maintenance allowance to the petitioner. 11. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the order impugned and the documents filed along with the petition. 12. The fact that Amba Lal Kumawat, the petitioner herein aged 70 years, married twice has been admitted in his statement. He has stated that Kailash Kumawat was born from his wedlock with Pushpa and Chandra Prakash, Lokesh and Manish were born of his wedlock with Nirmla. He has tried to down play the earnings of his three sons from Nirmla i.e. respondents No. 2 to 4. While he has tried to exaggerate the income of Kailash Kumawat to be Rs. 10,000/- P.M. Further, in the cross-examination, he has admitted that he is having a house and two shops and one of the shops is being operated by Lokesh his son from Nirmala. He has also admitted that he did not spend any money in the marriage of Kailash and that he never gave fatherly love to Kailash. He stated in his cross-examination that all his four sons are under an obligation to make payment of maintenance to him. 13. In view of the facts stated above, it is apparent that the petitioner is an old man of 70 years and appears not to be in a position to maintain himself. All his four sons, the respondents herein are able bodied young men who are having their own sources of income. Respondents No. 2 to 4 are enjoying the fruits of petitioner's property and are earning from the same. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that all the respondent No. 1 to 4 are under a legal and moral obligation to make payment of sufficient sum for the maintenance of the petitioner. 14. The Revision No. 760/2011 is thus allowed. The order dated 15.7.2011 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court Udaipur is set aside and it is directed that the respondent No. 1 shall make a payment of Rs. 14. The Revision No. 760/2011 is thus allowed. The order dated 15.7.2011 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court Udaipur is set aside and it is directed that the respondent No. 1 shall make a payment of Rs. 1000/- per month towards maintenance to the petitioner and the respondents No. 2 to 4 who are undisputedly enjoying the petitioner's property shall make a payment of monthly maintenance of Rs. 2000/- to the petitioner from the date of this order. The amount of maintenance shall be deposited in the Family Court, Udaipur before 10th of each month failing which the Court shall take immediate steps for the recovery thereof. 15. In view of the above direction, it is apparent that now the petitioner has been awarded a substantial sum of maintenance and thus he can easily part with a paltry amount of Rs. 500/- per month to his wife Smt. Pushpa whom he has neglected since long. Thus, it is directed that from the amount of Rs. 7000/- which the four sons of the petitioner shall deposit in the Family Court a sum of Rs. 500/-1 shall be paid to Smt. Pushpa as monthly maintenance. The orders dated 13.2.2008 and 4.3.2011 passed by the Judge, Family Court impugned in Revisions No. 252/2011 and 216/2008 do not call for interference whatsoever. This order is being passed without prejudice to the right of Smt. Pushpa to claim enhancement in the sum of maintenance as per law.Accordingly, these revisions are disposed of as stated above.Revision No. 252/2011, 216/2008 dismissed, Revision No. 760/2011 allowed. *******