ORDER : B. VEERAPPA, J. 1. Though the matter is posted for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. The unfortunate father is before this Court for enhancement of compensation against the order dated 31.12.2010, made in Cri. Misc. No. 130/2008 on the file of the District Judge, Family Court at Gulbarga, granting maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- towards medicine charges (in all Rs. 5,000/-) from the son respondent No. 1 from the date of judgment. 3. The present petitioner who is petitioner in Cri. Misc. No. 130/2008 filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 70,000/- towards medical expenses, as against respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent is son of the petitioner and second respondent wife of the respondent No. 1. The petitioner was owner of land bearing Sy. Nos. 19 and 20 situated at Daddapur village, which is at the out skirt of Gulbarga city. The KPTCL had acquired the land as per law. The Court had granted compensation of Rs. 99 lakhs and odd in LAC No. 11/1991 dated 16.03.1995. The petitioner had become too old and his eyesight is also weak. The petitioner has reposed full confidence with his only son. On the award sanctioned, the respondent No. 1 in collusion with the advocate of the petitioner has withdrawn Rs. 90 lakhs by forging the signature of petitioner and betrayed his own father in the ripe age. After receiving the said money, respondent No. 1 has constructed five shops and renovated the ancestral property at his desire. Out of renovation, the respondent No. 1 is getting monthly rent of Rs. 1,44,000/- and respondent No. 1 has leading luxurious life. The respondent No. 1 is collecting the rent from tenants every month. Since two years, the respondent No. 1 has neglected the petitioner and not providing any clothes and other day-to-day requirements. The petitioner has no source of income to maintain his day to day requirements. The petitioner is living in a comer of the palacious three storied building and respondent No. 1 owns a Santro car and living in air conditioned house and leading luxurious life. The respondent is spending huge money for his wife, father-in-law and other relatives but neglected his own old aged father. The petitioner is living in a comer of the palacious three storied building and respondent No. 1 owns a Santro car and living in air conditioned house and leading luxurious life. The respondent is spending huge money for his wife, father-in-law and other relatives but neglected his own old aged father. Since 8-10 years the respondent No. 1 is not taking care and not giving a single pie to the petitioner for his day-to-day life. Respondent No. 1 has contested in Assembly Election from Gulbarga South Constituency and spent huge money of Rs. 10 lakhs but he failed to provide any amount to his father. The respondent No. 2 being daughter-in-law, also neglected the petitioner. With great difficulty she sends one Thali food to the room at the afternoon. She neglected to provide house hold eatables to the petitioner at this old age. Due to untimely food and negligence of the respondents, the health of the petitioner deteriorating day by day. Since one year, the petitioner become victim of frustrate and unable to discharge his urine and getting severe pain. So also since two years the eye sight is too weak and both eyes have developed cataract and it needs immediate operation and also temporary medicine. The doctors have suggested to undergo operation for the said two ailments. The petitioner requires Rs. 70,000/- towards the operation charges. Since the respondent No. 1 was not having in talking terms with petitioner, in the last week of September 2008, the mediators by name Rudrashetty S/o: Sangashetty Patil the family friend, Sri. Subhashchandra Kamalapurkar Ex.MLA, have advised the respondent No. 1 to pay money for the operation and treatment. So also these senior citizens, well wishers of petitioner's family have advised the respondent No. 1 to pay monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 3,000/- to petitioner. In spite of advise made by the elders, the respondents have bend upon to neglect the petitioner. Petitioner is having acute pain, the diseases affected to his health. Therefore, he filed the petition for maintenance. 4. The respondents have filed their joint objection to the main petition. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 admitted their relationship with the petitioner and contended that petitioner is the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 20 of Daddapur village, which is situated in the outskirt of Gulbarga city. The respondent No. 1 has denied that Sy. 4. The respondents have filed their joint objection to the main petition. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 admitted their relationship with the petitioner and contended that petitioner is the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 20 of Daddapur village, which is situated in the outskirt of Gulbarga city. The respondent No. 1 has denied that Sy. No. 19 of Daddapur village has been acquired by the KPTCL and a compensation of Rs. 99 lakhs has been awarded in LAC No. 11/1991 dated 16.03.1995. The respondents have denied that respondent No. 1 has withdrawn the compensation of Rs. 99 lakhs by forging the signature of the petitioner and thereby betrayed his own father. The respondents have also denied the health condition of the petitioner. It is contended that the sister of petitioner has filed a suit for partition in O.S.No. 108/1995, as against the petitioner praying for the relief of partition and separate possession in the properties. In the said suit, the respondent No. 1 got himself impleaded. The father of the petitioner by name Basavanthrao (i.e. grand father of respondent No. 1) executed a registered Will bearing document No. 3/1983 dated 17.05.1983, in favour of respondent No. 1 and had bequeathed all his property in favour of respondent No. 1 by executing said Will dated 17.05.1983. Subsequently, the said suit O.S.No. 108/1995, the parties therein have compromised the subject-matter of the suit. In the said partition the petitioner has been allotted with plot No. 1-1294/1 measuring 201 feet in length from north south, 136 feet in width towards south and 68 feet towards north situated at Gulabwadi, Iwan-E-Shahi Road, Gulbarga. In the said plot there is one flour mill, said Hour mill has been allotted to the share of petitioner. The petitioner has also been allotted with land Sy.No.20 measuring 21 acres 35 guntas. Out of which, the Railway authorities have acquired 1 acre 30 guntas, the petitioner had received compensation amount of Rs. 19,69,617/- in the year 1994. Further it is contended that the petitioner has also been given cash of Rs. 5 lakhs towards his share. The respondent No. 1 has been allotted with entire house bearing Corporation No. 1-18 and 1-18/1 situated at Court road, Gulbarga along with open space in front of and also to the side and Rs. 19,69,617/- in the year 1994. Further it is contended that the petitioner has also been given cash of Rs. 5 lakhs towards his share. The respondent No. 1 has been allotted with entire house bearing Corporation No. 1-18 and 1-18/1 situated at Court road, Gulbarga along with open space in front of and also to the side and Rs. 60,00,000/- out of the compensation amount received in acquisition of land and remaining 2 acres 9 guntas of the said land and the said partition acted upon and the other averments denied and further denied that they are living in luxurious life. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Based on the aforesaid pleadings the Family Court framed the following issues; 1. Whether the petitioner proves that, respondent though having sufficient means have neglected to maintain him? 2. Whether the petitioner proves that, he is unable to maintain himself? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to maintenance and medical allowance? If so, to what rate and from what date? 4. What order? 6. In order to substantiate the case, the petitioner examined as PW. 1 and two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 produced the documents Exs.P1 to P13. The respondent No. 1 examined as RW.1 and produced the documents Exs.R1 and R2. 7. The Family Court after considering the entire materials on record held that the petitioner proves that respondent though having sufficient means have neglected to maintain the petitioner and the petitioner proves that he is unable to maintain himself. Therefore, he is entitled the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- including medicine charges from respondent No. 1. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 31.12.2010, has granted Rs. 5,000/- from the first respondent from the date of the judgment. Hence, the present revision petition is filed by the father for enhancement of compensation. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 9. Sri. Harshavardhan R. Malipatil, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the first respondent is getting monthly rental income of Rs. 1,44,000/-. Even as per his own admission, he was getting income of Rs. 62,000/- p.m. Considering the same the maintenance granted by the Family Court is a meager amount, which is unjust and improper. He also contended that as per Ex.P-13 memorandum of partition the respondent No. 1 is allotted a sum of Rs. 1,44,000/-. Even as per his own admission, he was getting income of Rs. 62,000/- p.m. Considering the same the maintenance granted by the Family Court is a meager amount, which is unjust and improper. He also contended that as per Ex.P-13 memorandum of partition the respondent No. 1 is allotted a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs in the year 2000 apart from other properties and the Court below has not properly taken into consideration this aspect of the matter. He further contended that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is very meager though the petition is filed in the year 2008 and in view of the hike of all essential commodities, the maintenance granted by the Family Court is very meager. Hence, he sought to enhance the compensation. 10. Per contra, Sri. G.G. Chagashetti, the learned counsel for the respondents sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Family Court and strenuously contended that respondent No. 1 has borrowed loan from the Bank and he has to discharge the loan. He is the only person taking care of the whole family with his four children and wife along with the petitioner and also contended that petitioner before the impugned order passed has alienated the property of 1 acre 13 guntas in Sy.No. 19 of Daddapur village adjacent to Kalaburagi Railway Station, for a sum of Rs. 7.00 lakhs. Therefore, he contended that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is just and proper and no interference is called for. 11. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is; "Whether the petitioner has made out any prima facie case for enhancement of compensation modifying the impugned order passed by the Family Court?" 12. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. 13. It is an admitted fact that the father had filed Cri. Misc. No. 130/2008, against the son and daughter-in-law, the Family Court dismissed the petition against respondent No. 2 i.e. daughter-in-law and granting a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as maintenance from the first respondent son. 13. It is an admitted fact that the father had filed Cri. Misc. No. 130/2008, against the son and daughter-in-law, the Family Court dismissed the petition against respondent No. 2 i.e. daughter-in-law and granting a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as maintenance from the first respondent son. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute though several contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties with regard to the acquisition and partition and alienation by the petitioner some property in the year 2010 for a sum of Rs. 7.00 lakhs. No material is produced before the Family Court to substantiate their contentions. The fact remains that whether as on the date of the petition filed, the petitioner having sufficient means to maintain himself. The Family Court considering the entire material on record, recorded a specific finding that the petitioner-father proved that respondent-son having sufficient means has neglected to maintain him and the petitioner proved that he is unable to maintain himself. The said finding of fact recorded by the Family Court based on the oral and documentary evidence available on record is not at all challenged by the respondent No. 1 son. The petitioner-father who is aged about 75 years as on today has no sufficient means to maintain himself. Therefore, it is the duty of the first respondent-son who is having means to maintain his father in terms of the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.RC. The Family Court also recorded the finding that in the cross-examination of RW.1, the respondent No. 1/son has admitted that he is getting rent of Rs. 62,000/- from commercial shops which he owned and possessed. Therefore, it is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 is having sufficient means to provide separate maintenance to his old age father. 14. The provisions of Section 125 (d) of Cr.RC. deals with that 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 of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: 15. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner who is father of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 who has also contested for Assembly Election is a popular person in the locality. Therefore, it is the duty upon him to maintain his old age father aged about 75 years as on today who is at the fag end of his life. The petitioner in order to prove that he is suffering from several ailments, he has produced Exs.P1 and P2 medical certificates, Fxs.P6 and P7 medical prescriptions. The said documents are not in dispute and it cannot be disputed that at the age of 75 years the petitioner is suffering certainly some ailments. It is the duty of the son to look after his old age father at this stage. Taking into consideration, Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed in the year 2008 and now we are in the year 2016. Admittedly the relationship of the petitioner and respondent No. 1 is not in dispute and the respondent No. 1 is getting Rs. 60,000/- from is own admission. It is the duty of the respondent son to maintain the father who is aged about 75 years in view of the provisions of Section 125(d) of Cr.P.C. This Court has also taken judicial notice that the petitioner who is aged about 75 years certainly he has to spend amount towards his medicines, residence, clothing, food and other day-to-day activities and taking into consideration the hike of all the essential commodities, it is proper to award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in addition to Rs. 5,000/- already granted in total Rs. 10,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, the point raised in this revision petition has to be held in affirmative holding that the petitioner has made a prima facie case for enhancement of maintenance modifying the impugned order. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and others, reported in AIR 2014 SC 2875 , held that concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one and also held that it is obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. 17. In the present case, taking into consideration the age of the petitioner who is aged about 75 years as on today and the financial capacity of the respondent who has admitted in his cross-examination that he is getting Rs. 62,000/- monthly rent, it is the duty of the son to maintain the father to lead a life in a similar manner as he would have lived in the house of son, when the son is getting Rs. 62,000/- as rent which is admitted by him, the father should not be thrown away from grace and roam and he should not became destitute, a beggar. The said principle made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case stated supra is also applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The difference between the said case stated supra is filed by wife and the present case is filed by the father who is aged about 75 years. A situation is not to be maladroitly created where under the petitioner is compelled to resign to his fate and think of life "dust unto dust". It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the son is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able bodied. Admittedly, in the present case, the first respondent is having sufficient means and the petitioner has no means to sustain himself. Therefore, it is the duty of the first respondent to pay the maintenance. 18. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 31.12.2010 made in Cri. Misc. No. 130/2008 on the file of the District Judge Family Court Gulbarga is modified and the petitioner is entitled monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- including medicine charges from the date of this order and the first respondent shall pay the maintenance to the petitioner father without any default. 19. Order accordingly.