2026:HHC:41132 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Rev.(FC) No. 06 of 2025 Decided on: 24.09 .2026 Kunan Ram ……..Petitioner Versus Ram Singh and another …...… Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes _____________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Mr. Lokesh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Surender Verma, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 24.12.2024, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandi, in Case No. 36 of 2021, titled Ram Singh and another vs. Kunan Ram, filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for providing monthly maintenance allowance, in terms whereof, the learned Court below has been pleased to allow the said application in the following terms: “27. As a sequel to my findings on point No. 1 above, the present petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month each to petitioner No. 1 and 2 from the date of filing of this petition with further order to pay arrears within three months of the order after deducting the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 amount, which had already been paid under the interim order, if any. A copy of this order be supplied to the petitioners forthwith free of cost. The file, after its due completion, be consigned to the record room. Announced in the open Court today this 24th day of December, 2024, in presence of learned Counsel.” 2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the order passed by learned Court below, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 3. The respondents before this Court are the parents of the petitioner, who have been granted Rs.1500/- each per month as maintenance allowance by the learned Court below in terms of the impugned order. The reasoning which has been given by the learned Court below while allowing said application demonstrates that the learned Court took into consideration the fact that the parents of the petitioner had demonstrated their inability to maintain themselves. Learned Court held that the petitioner was an able-bodied individual and was reasonably capable of providing support and thus, it ordered the payment of Rs.1,500/- each in favour of the parents. Learned Court also took note of the fact that the petitioner herein 3 had disclosed his monthly income as Rs.10,000/- and had also claimed that his spouse was earning Rs.20,000 per month as a MGNREGA labourer. Learned Court also took note of the fact that though the parents were getting old-age pension of Rs.1,500/- per month under a Government Welfare Scheme but as was alleged by the son/present petitioner that he had provided a house to the parents, was not substantiated that he had indeed voluntarily handed over house to the parents constructed at his own expenses and to his deterrent. Learned Court also took note of the fact that as the son had affirmed the fact that his parents were earning income by working under the MGNREGA, thus, the very fact that the parents, who were aged persons, were being compelled to work as laborers under the MGNREGA scheme, demonstrated that they were facing financial hardship. 4. During the course of the hearing of this petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that the findings returned by the learned Court below were either perverse or were not borne from the record. That being so, in our considered view, the amount of Rs.1,500/- awarded by the learned Court below in favour of each of the parents, to be paid by the son (the present petitioner), can neither be said to be an exorbitant amount, nor can the order be 4 said to be a harsh one. We concur with the findings returned by the learned Court below that the petitioner, in his capacity as the son of the respondent-parents, who are obviously senior citizens and aged persons, is both morally and legally bound to look after his parents. Parents at this age cannot be left on their own and made to feed themselves by working in MGNREGA etc. Accordingly, in the light of the above discussion, as we do not find any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge (Yogesh Jaswal) Judge September 24 , 2026 (narender)