JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Present Revision Petition has been filed, assailing order dated 22.06.2017, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P., in Criminal Revision Petition No.9-N/10 of 2016, titled as Raghubir Singh vs. Paramjeet Kaur & others, whereby order dated 22.02.2016, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Criminal Petition No.163/4 of 2013, titled as Paramjeet Kaur vs. Raghubir Singh & others allowing the petition of the petitioner by directing respondents No.1 and 4 to pay each monthly maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to their mother w.e.f. month of May 2013, has been set aside. 2. Petitioner is mother of respondent Raghubir Singh. She has four sons. On 09.05.2013, she preferred a petition under Section 125 The Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) against her four sons, claiming Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance amount from the date of filing of petition by keeping in view inflation as well as necessities of life, with a prayer to award Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. Present respondent Raghubir Singh was respondent No.1 in the said petition and other three sons of petitioner were respondent No.2-Gurmeet Singh, respondent No.3-Nirmal Singh and respondent No.4-Pritam Singh. 3. As per petitioner, respondent No.1, running a Tea Stall near Civil Hospital main bazaar Paonta Sahib and having agricultural land measuring 9-10 bighas in Village Barotiwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, was earning Rs.25,000/- per month; respondent No.2, owner of 9-10 bighas land in Village Barotiwala, was earning around Rs.15,000/-, per month; respondent No.3, serving in Indian Army and having agricultural land measuring 8-9 bighas in Village Barotiwala, was earning around Rs.20,000/- per month; and respondent No.4, working in a Factory and having agricultural land measuring 9-10 bighas in Village Barotiwala, was earning about Rs.20,000/- per month. 4. 4. As per petitioner, she alongwith her deceased husband brought up their sons by providing every facility and education as per their status and after death of her husband, his entire agricultural land was inherited by her sons in equal shares and no land was kept by the petitioner for herself and she was dependent upon her sons for maintenance, but they were ill-treating her and were not maintaining her and in April 2013 she was forcibly thrown out of her house, which was constructed by her husband and petitioner was and is residing with Gurmeet Singh in Village Barotiwala, and with no source of income being widow she was living at mercy of Gurmeet Singh, who was also not providing her food, clothes and medicines etc. 5. As per petitioner, her four married daughters, as and when wanted to visit the petitioner, petitioner was having no house for stay of her daughters, and, therefore, they were not able to meet her. 6. In present proceedings, respondents No.2 to 4 were deleted on an application filed by the petitioner stating therein that those respondents were paying the maintenance to the petitioner as per order of the Trial Court and, thus, they are not necessary party in present Revision Petition. 7. Before the Magistrate, respondents No.2 and 3 appeared and conceded to the claim of the petitioner and undertook to pay Rs.5000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of filing of petition, and petition qua them was disposed of accordingly. However, respondent No.4 did not appear before the Magistrate and an ex parte order directing him to pay Rs.3000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner, was passed at the time of passing of final order dated 22.02.2016 in Criminal Petition No.163/4 of 2013, titled as Paramjeet Kaur vs. Raghubir Singh & others whereby present respondent (respondent No.1) was also directed to pay the same amount, i.e. Rs.3000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner. 8. The aforesaid order dated 22.02.2016 was assailed by present respondent Raghubir Singh. Whereas, respondents No.2 to 4 Gurmeet Singh, Nirmal Singh and Pritam Singh accepted the order and did not assail it. Petitioner-Paramjit Kaur also accepted the said order awarding maintenance of Rs.3000/-each from present respondent and respondent No.4-Pritam Singh. 9. Additional Sessions Judge, after perusing the evidence and considering circumstances, vide order dated 22. Whereas, respondents No.2 to 4 Gurmeet Singh, Nirmal Singh and Pritam Singh accepted the order and did not assail it. Petitioner-Paramjit Kaur also accepted the said order awarding maintenance of Rs.3000/-each from present respondent and respondent No.4-Pritam Singh. 9. Additional Sessions Judge, after perusing the evidence and considering circumstances, vide order dated 22. 06.2017 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.9-N/10 of 2016, has set aside the order dated 22.02.2016 passed by the Magistrate by dismissing the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against present respondent Raghubir Singh only, on the ground that at the time of passing order directing the respondent to pay maintenance, ingredients required under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for passing such order, were not in existence. 10. Present Revision Petition has been filed by the mother under Section 125(1)(d), which provides that if any person having sufficient means, neglects or refuses to maintain his mother who is unable to maintain herself, a Magistrate of First Class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his mother. 11. As recorded by Additional Session Judge three ingredients contained in Section 125 Cr.P.C. must be in existence for awarding maintenance to the mother. Such essential ingredients are that a person should be having sufficient means; should have neglected or refused to maintain his mother; and mother should be unable to maintain herself. Mere allegation is not sufficient and there should be proof of existence of these ingredients. All these ingredients must co-exist at the time of passing of order. 12. I am of the considered opinion that there are four stages when existence of these ingredients is mandatory. In given facts and circumstances of a case existence of these ingredients may be relevant at any stage irrespective of other stage or may relevant at two or more stages or all stages. First stage is at the time of filing of claim or say at initial stage from which maintenance is claimed or awarded, second stage is at the time of considering prayer for interim maintenance, third stage is at the time of deciding the matter finally and fourth stage is at the time of alteration in maintenance awarded in proceeding under Section 127 Cr.P.C. The date from which maintenance is awarded may also be a relevant date for considering the existence of factors including all four ingredients referred supra. 13. 13. The period during which all essential ingredients are present, claimant shall be entitled for maintenance. 14. Admittedly, in present case two sons Gurmeet Singh and Nirmal Singh are paying Rs.5000/- each, i.e. Rs.10,000/- per month and Pritam Singh is paying Rs.3000/- per month as stated in an application Cr.M.P. No.55 of 2019 by petitioner filed for deleting these respondents, which is duly supported by affidavit of petitioner that respondents No.2 to 4 are paying maintenance to the petitioner as per order passed by the Trial Court. Therefore, petitioner is getting Rs.13,000/- as maintenance from her three other sons. 15. In application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., petitioner has stated that she was residing with Gurmeet Singh in Village Barotiwala, but she was not getting good food, clothes and medicines. In her deposition in the Court, she has stated that she was living alone, but not with anybody and Gurmeet Singh was providing only food and water to her and nothing else. Whereas, RW.2 Ravinder Singh, witness of complainant, in his cross-examination has stated that petitioner was residing with her son Gurmeet Singh and he was looking after her. 16. In cross-examination, though the petitioner has stated that other three sons were also not paying maintenance to her, as ordered by the Court. However, she has also stated that she did not prefer any Execution Petition for recovery of the said maintenance. Contrary to such stand, in Cr.M.P. No.55 of 2019, she stated that other three sons were paying maintenance to her regularly. 17. In application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., petitioner had claimed that she was ousted from the house built by her husband. However, in cross-examination, she stated that she was ousted from the old house by Mahinder Singh about 20-25 years ago, who was and is that Mahinder Singh, no information is available on record. 18. Petitioner has also admitted that her husband had expired prior to her father-in-law, and his property was devolved upon her sons on the basis of Will. Whereas, after death of her father-in-law, his property was devolved upon her and her children, including all four sons and daughters and her son Raghubir Singh was residing separately since 17-18 years. RW.2 Ravinder Singh has also admitted that Raghubir Singh is a Mobile Tea Vendor and used to sell his tea near Ravindra Medical Store. 19. Whereas, after death of her father-in-law, his property was devolved upon her and her children, including all four sons and daughters and her son Raghubir Singh was residing separately since 17-18 years. RW.2 Ravinder Singh has also admitted that Raghubir Singh is a Mobile Tea Vendor and used to sell his tea near Ravindra Medical Store. 19. In present case, it appears that claimant mother has not come with clean hands. With same breath she is claiming that her other sons are paying but she is also claiming that others are also not paying however she has not preferred Execution Petition against them. She has claimed that in absence of maintenance she is facing financial hardship but despite that she is not resorting to remedy of Execution against other sons who have not assailed and repelled Award of maintenance. Material on record gives an impression that claimant and her other sons have connived with each other in order to trap respondent Raghubir Singh since beginning. Reality is known to parties. The Court has to decide on the basis of possible inference drawn on the basis of material placed before it. 20. Respondent-Raghubir Singh has not refused directly to maintain her mother, but has stated that in case land of his share is handed over to him, he would be paying maintenance to his mother, who is in possession of some portion of land belonging to Raghubir Singh. He has further stated that because he has to maintain three children out of his income of Rs.3000-4000/- per month, it is not possible for him to pay maintenance allowance to his mother. Stand of the respondent may be considered indirect refusal to pay maintenance. However there is no material on record with respect to existence of other ingredients. Rather two sons had accepted and undertaken to pay maintenance of Rs.5000/- each in the very beginning and third son has also accepted to pay Rs.3000/- per month whereas fourth son respondent Raghubir Singh is agitating the issue on the ground of paucity of funds. 21. For pleadings and material on record placed by both sides, it is an admitted position that petitioner is getting Rs.13,000/- per month and she is residing with Gurmeet Singh, who is maintaining and looking after her. 21. For pleadings and material on record placed by both sides, it is an admitted position that petitioner is getting Rs.13,000/- per month and she is residing with Gurmeet Singh, who is maintaining and looking after her. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that it is moral duty of the respondent to contribute some amount for maintaining his mother and, therefore, respondent is liable to pay maintenance amount to the petitioner and, therefore, impugned order deserves to be set aside. 22. A moral duty, in absence of any statutory force, cannot be enforced by invoking provisions of law. For passing order of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., all essential ingredients, required for awarding maintenance must necessarily be in existence at the time of passing order as discussed supra. In given facts and circumstances of the present case for want of requisite material, it cannot be said that with payment of maintenance by other three sons amounting to Rs.13,000/- per month, petitioner is not able to maintain herself. 23. Adequacy of quantum of maintenance amount may differ in case to case in the given facts and circumstances, keeping in view the status of claimant as well as persons liable to pay the maintenance and depends upon other relevant factors and parameters required to be considered in determining in quantum. In present case, the Additional Sessions Judge has considered amount of Rs.13,000/- per month as a sufficient amount of maintenance to the claimant-mother. it may be Rs.13,000/ - or Rs.15,000/-. 24. Keeping in view all factors and parameters necessary for adjudication of the petition for maintenance and also relationship of mother and son between parties, and for providing opportunity to son to contribute towards maintenance of mother for repayment of debt to mother (Matri Rinn), respondent Raghubir Singh is directed to pay Rs.2000/- per month to his mother/petitioner from 01.11.2023 by transferring/depositing the said amount in the account of petitioner mother on or before 7th of each month with first deposit on or before 07.11.2023. Details of account number shall be exchanged by parties through their learned counsel. 25. Needless to say that in the changed circumstances, either party has a right to file appropriate application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for alteration/modification/enhancement/ reduction of the amount of maintenance. 26. Petition is disposed of accordingly, so also pending application(s), if any in aforesaid terms.