Toufique Uddin, J.@mdashThis revision application arose out of an order dated 17.7.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kandi, Murshidabad in Misc. Case No. 126 of 2008 with T.R. No. 1258 of 2008 in proceeding u/s 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. None appears on behalf of the petitioner as well as State. Heard the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 1, the mother of the present petitioner.
2. The background in a nutshell of this revision is that O.P. No. 1 being the mother of the present petitioner filed a case u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the court below on the ground of neglect and refusal with a prayer for maintenance amount of Rs. 4000/- p.m. by stating that the petitioner is a government employee in the Irrigation Dept. having a monthly salary of Rs. 15000/- p.m. But he is not maintaining the O.P. No. 1.
3. On the other hand, the present petitioner (O.P. No. 2) contested the maintenance case by filing written statement admitting that he is an employee of the government but disputing his amount of monthly salary and stated that his mother has other two sons having sufficient properties left by her father and his mother is also enjoying the property left by his father. Further, it was contended by him that the petitioner is always willing to maintain her mother and he sent money order but she is not accepting the same and now she is well maintained by his other two brothers.
4. It was also stated that in order to deprive the petitioner his mother and other two brothers has captured the property left by his father by way of executing some forged deeds and that is why the petitioner has filed T.S. No. 35 of 2008. Thereafter, the O.P. has filed the M. Case u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he prayed for dismissal of the case therein.
5. On hearing of both sides, learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 17.7.2010 granted maintenance to the mother to the extent of Rs. 2000/- p.m.
6. But at the time of hearing none was present on behalf of the petitioner.
7. All the contentions of the present petitioner were taken care of by the learned court below as I find on scrutiny of the order of the learned Magistrate. The order is a speaking one. It is settled principle that in absence of any concrete proof that the mother is having sufficient means to maintain herself an able-bodied and the employed son is bound to maintain his mother.
8. Here in this case, regarding the income of the petitioner there is no doubt. But to the contrary, any income of mother has not been proved by the petitioner either by oral evidence of independent witnesses or by documentary witnesses. A careful examination of the impugned order goes to suggest that there appears to be no infirmity.
9. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the instant revision and the same stands dismissed on contest.
10. I pass no order as to costs. Urgent certified copies, if applied for, to be issued according to rules.
