Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 370 (TRI)

Sudip Modak v. Jyotshna Rani Modak

2014-11-12

S.TALAPATRA, U.B.SAHA

body2014
JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J. 1. Heard Mr. B. Majumdar, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. N. Majumdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court's Act, 1984 against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2012 delivered in Miscellaneous Case No. 189/2012 by the learned Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala ordering the appellants to pay Rs. 2,500/- each, per month, to their mother, who has no independent source of income for her maintenance. 3. Mr. Majumdar, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in terms of the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. unless there is refusal to maintain, the court cannot pass any order of maintenance inasmuch as refusal to maintain the categories of persons entitled to receive maintenance, within the ambit of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is sine qua non for issuing any order of maintenance. He has further elaborated his submission by saying that if the respondent resides with either of the petitioners, they would definitely maintain her according to their means. In addition to that, Mr. Majumdar has submitted that the respondent did not make her another son party in the proceedings. According to Mr. Majumdar, it is the equal liability of each son to maintain their mother and the liability is not only with the earning sons. 4. Mr. N. Majumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that since the petitioners did not maintain the respondent she had been passing her days in destitution and having compelled by the situation she approached the Court against her sons seeking maintenance. It is further submitted that one of the petitioners namely, Sudip Modak is the dealer of a Fair Price Shop whereas the other namely, Pradip Modak is the owner of a Truck vehicle. 5. After scrutinizing the records we have observed that according to the respondent her another son is having no income of worth and he has been deriving a paltry sum of Rs. 450/- as rent and he himself is unable to maintain his own family. We have meticulously evaluated the findings returned by the learned Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala. According to us, there is no infirmity in the judgment and as such we do not propose to interfere with the same. 6. The ground as raised by Mr. 450/- as rent and he himself is unable to maintain his own family. We have meticulously evaluated the findings returned by the learned Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala. According to us, there is no infirmity in the judgment and as such we do not propose to interfere with the same. 6. The ground as raised by Mr. Majumdar, learned counsel for the appellants that unless there is an element of refusal no order of maintenance can be passed, cannot be accepted by us. The core of this provision is for the welfare of the persons facing destitution and as catalogued under Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C., Sine qua non is not the refusal or negligence but maintenance. We are satisfied that the appellants were, if not refusing, but neglecting to maintain the respondent, their mother, despite their having sufficient means. As such the objection raised by Mr. Majumdar does not hold any substance at all. As the respondent has stated that her younger son does not have sufficient means, his non-joinder in the proceeding does not, in any way, affect the proceeding. 7. Having held thus, the appellants are directed to pay Rs. 2,500/-, each, per month, to their mother namely, Smt. Jyotsna Rani Modak, the respondent herein, in terms of the impugned judgment and order dated 19.12.2012. However, if the appellants can pursue their mother to stay with them and they maintain their mother with all humility in their family, this order shall cease to have its effect. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. Send down the lower court records forthwith.