IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Revision (FC) No. 56 of 2024 Decided on: 1st January, 2025 Desh Raj .......petitioner versus Simro Devi ...Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate. For the respondent: Nemo. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) Aggrieved by the order of grant of maintenance, passed by the learned Family Court in favour of the respondent, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. 2. The facts are not in dispute. The respondent herein is the mother of the petitioner who was aged about 69 years when she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance. It is duly established on record that the respondent did not have any independent source of income. The husband of the petitioner had expired in the year 2019, leaving behind the petitioner and respondent. The younger son of the respondent had already died and now the respondent and her daughter-in-law are living in the same house, after the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 death of her husband, whereas, the petitioner started living with his family in a separate house. 3. The main ground on which the petitioner objected to the grant of maintenance was that he had been abandoned by the respondent when he was only six months old and the respondent had left the petitioner with his father as their relations were strained. The petitioner was brought up by his father and his educational expenses were also borne by him. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was neither in taking nor visiting terms with respondent and the petitioner was not under any obligation to maintain her, even though she was his mother. 4. A faint attempt was also made to oppose the petition on the ground that the father of the petitioner had provided two bighas of land to the respondent for cultivation which was fertile land of Doon area and the petitioner had been sowing cash crops over the same and in addition thereto, getting widow pension of Rs.2,000/- per month. 5. Another ground raised by the petitioner to oppose the maintenance was that he had to look after his wife and two children who are studying in 7th and 8th Classes respectively, and their monthly expenditure is more than Rs.40,000/- and, therefore, he is left with very little amount so as to maintain himself. 3 6. The learned Court below vide order dated 06.02.2024 had framed the following issues:- 1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to maintenance from the respondent, if so, to what amount, as prayed for? OPP. 2) Whether the present petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR. 3) Relief. 7. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, the learned Court below had awarded a sum of Rs.3300/- as maintenance in favour of the respondent from the date of filing of the petition, as such, aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the instant petition. 8. The grounds raised before the learned Court below have once again been reiterated herein, but we do not find any merit in the same for the following reasons:- i) It is not in dispute that the respondent is the mother of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is not only under a moral but a legal obligation to maintain her. ii) It is not in dispute that the respondent does not have any independent source of income so as to maintain herself except pension of Rs.1,000/- per month which, with the passage of time was enhanced from July, 2023 to Rs.1700/- per month, which has rightly been held by the learned Court below that the same is insufficient for the respondent to maintain herself and thereafter adjusted while awarding maintenance. 4 iii) It is further not in dispute that the petitioner is a pensioner and in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the maintenance allowance of Rs.3300/- in favour of the respondent cannot be held to be excessive or unreasonable. 9. The mere fact that the petitioner feels that he had been abandoned by the respondent cannot by itself is a ground to deny the maintenance to the respondent, who, as observed above, is admittedly, the mother of the petitioner. 10. The findings recorded by the learned Court below are in tune with the pleadings and evidence led by the parties and, therefore, warrants no interference. 11. Consequently, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge January 01, 2025 ( Rakesh Kainthla ) (naveen) Judge