Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 321 (CAL)

Pravash Chandra Maity v. State Of West Bengal

2020-03-02

JAY SENGUPTA

body2020
JUDGMENT Jay Sengupta, J. - This is an application challenging the judgment and order dated 01.03.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk in Criminal Revision No.102 of 2018 arising out of an order dated 07.02.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The opposite party no.2/mother of the petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming monthly maintenance allowance. Admittedly, the opposite party no.2 had six sons and five daughters although one of the sons passed away in the mean time. In spite of this, she chose only the present petitioner i.e., the second son to proceed against. The petitioner has a small garments shop and has a family to maintain. There is also a property dispute among the brothers. The learned Court below erred in awarding Rs.3000/- as monthly maintenance allowance to the mother. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and have perused the revisional petition. 4. It appears from the order passed by the learned Trial Court and the learned revisional Court that the petitioner was quite capable of maintaining his mother. 5. It is also reflected that earlier the opposite party no.2/mother had distributed a landed property amongst all her sons and daughters and gave away one more property exclusively to the present petitioner. 6. Be that as it may, it is up to the mother to choose which of her sons or daughters she wants to claim maintenance allowance from. 7. It is not in doubt that the opposite party no.2 has no independent source of income and is a very aged lady who is having to pray for maintenance allowance from one of her sons. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances, it is abundantly clear that the opposite party no.2/mother is entitled to claim maintenance allowance from the petitioner/son. 9. As regards the amount fixed by the learned Magistrate Rs.3000/- per month, it comes to Rs.100/- per day. This is only a bare minimum that can sustain an individual. 10. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Trial Court and the learned Revisional Court. 11. 9. As regards the amount fixed by the learned Magistrate Rs.3000/- per month, it comes to Rs.100/- per day. This is only a bare minimum that can sustain an individual. 10. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Trial Court and the learned Revisional Court. 11. Accordingly, C.R.R.671 of 2020 is dismissed. 12. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 13. Urgent certified photostat copy of this judgement, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.