1.Khalid Akhtar @ Pappu 2.Kamal Akhtar @ Nabab v. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Sahabuddin Ahmad 3.Anjum Nisha CORAM: HON'BLE
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 1082 of 2018 --------- 1.Khalid Akhtar @ Pappu 2.Kamal Akhtar @ Nabab ..… Petitioners Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Sahabuddin Ahmad 3.Anjum Nisha CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ….. Opp. Parties ---------- For the Petitioners For the State For O.P. No.2 & 3 --------- : Mr. H. K. Shikarwar, Advocate : Mr. A. K. Tiwari, A.P.P. : Mr. Md. Sajid Yunus, Advocate --------- ORAL ORDER IN COURT 10/29.08.2023 This Criminal Revision application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging the order dated 31.05.2018 passed in original Maintenance Case No. 03 of 2016 by Shri Akhil Kumar, then Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh by which the maintenance Case filed on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 and 3 herein under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed by directing the petitioners herein (O.P. No.s 1 and 2 in the maintenance case) to make payment of Rs.2,500/- each in favour of both the O.P. No. 2 and O.P. No.3. It has also been directed that the O.P. No. 2 and 3 herein, i.e. the father and the mother shall receive a total amount of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) per month for their food, medicines and clothes from their sons (petitioners herein) and the aforesaid amount of maintenance -2- shall be received by the O.P. 2 and O.P. No. 3 herein for their maintenance till further order. The Court has further directed the petitioners to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.1,000/- each, i.e. total amount of Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost to the O.P. No. 2 and O.P. No. 3 of the present Criminal Revision. 2. The case of the O.P. No. 2 and 3, i.e. father and mother of the petitioners of this case, in brief, is that they had filed one maintenance case, bearing M. Case No. 03/2016 in the court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- each towards their maintenance and Rs. 5,000/- each for medical expenses on 20.01.2016. Further case of the O.P. No. 2 and 3 is that O.P. No. 3 (Petitioner No. 2 in the Court below) has purchased a land measuring 12 decimal at village Khirgaon by virtue of registered sale deed dated 08.2.1978 and both O.P. No. 2 and 3 constructed a pucca residential house consisting of seven rooms in the year 1979-80. Thereafter, O.P. No. 2 and 3 along with the petitioners and their family started living there but the behaviour of the petitioners was not cordial and they used to quarrel with the O.P. No. 2 and 3 and thereafter O.P. No. 2 and 3 had asked the petitioners to live in rental house in the year 2010 and the petitioners started living in a separate house at Lepo Road Faizan Nagar, Khirgaon P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribagh. -3- Thereafter, on 03.7.2011 the petitioners having armed with deadly weapons suddenly entered into the house of the O.P. No. 2 and 3 and got the signature of O.P. No. 2 and 3 on stamp paper and abused them in filthy language and attempted to commit their murder. 3. It has been stated that the petitioners have also taken away jewellery from the box of the O.P. No. 2 and 3 and they have been ousted from their own house and for which the O.P. No. 3 (Petitioner No. 2 in the Court below) has lodged Complaint Case no.1195 of 2011 against the petitioners herein and others. It is stated that the said case was sent u/s 156 (iii) Cr.P.C. to the police station and police has instituted Sadar P.S. Case No. 612/11, under Section 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504, 379 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (DAAIN) Practices Act. It has been stated that the petitioners of this Criminal Revision did not allow O.P. No. 2 and 3 to live in the same house and hence O.P. No. 2 and 3 started living in a separate room on a rent @ Rs. 2,000/- per month in Lepo Road, Khirgaon. Thereafter, O.P. No. 3 (i.e. Petitioner No. 2 in the Court below) has instituted Title Suit No. 61 of 2013 in connection with the land purchased for the said house against the present petitioners for declaration and
Legal Reasoning
confirmation of her possession. It has also been stated that O.P. No. 2 and 3 herein are very old and aged persons suffering from several diseases, such -4- as problems related to heart, diabetes and they need money for their treatment and they are undergoing treatment under the guidance of several doctors. It has been further stated that O.P. No. 2 and 3, i.e. Petitioners in Court below have no source of income to maintain themselves and hence their sons, i.e. petitioners of this Criminal Revision may be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-as maintenance to the O.P. No. 2 and 3 and towards their maintenance and Rs. 5,000/- each for medical expenses. 4. The Petitioners- Opposite Parties in the Court below filed their show-cause in the Court below on 20.06.2016 and has admitted that they are sons of the O.P. No. 2 and 3 but they are living separately from the O.P. No. 2 and 3 in a separate house. They have further stated that they have also contributed towards construction of the house in question. It has been stated that the petitioners, who are O.P. No. 1 and 2 in the Court below, decided to live in a separate house to avoid day to day quarrel initiated by the O.P. No. 2 and 3 herein (i.e. the petitioners in the Court below). The petitioners have denied that they have entered the house with deadly weapon and got their signature on stamp papers and they have also denied the allegation of taking the jewellery from the box of O.P. No. 2 and 3 and have stated that O.P. No. 2 and 3 were not ousted from their own house by both the petitioners. It is also stated that proceeding -5- under Section 107 Cr.P.C. was initiated between both the sides and the said proceeding was dropped by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hazaribagh. It is also stated that a false complaint, bearing Complaint Case No. 1195 of 2011 was lodged against the petitioners herein under Section 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 379 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (DAAIN) Practices Act. It is further stated that O.P. No. 2, i.e. the father, is doing business of Real Estate and his monthly income is not less than Rs. 2,500/- per month and further O.P. No. 3 has also filed a case under Domestic Violence Act. 5. It is further stated in the show-cause that the Petitioner No.1 of this revision is a non- matric and employed as a sales man in a stationery shop and his salary is only Rs. 4,000 /- per month only. It is informed that the Petitioner No.1 in the Criminal Revision) is an Accountant in a shop and his monthly income is Rs. 15,000/- and he is receiving Rs.5,000/- per month in rent as he has no home to let out on rent. 6.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. and Md. Sajid and Md. S.Yunus for O.P. No. 2 and 3. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned judgment passed in the Maintenance case No. 03 of 2016 is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is -6- submitted that learned Court below has not appreciated the evidence led on behalf of the parties and has wrongly directed the petitioners to pay Rs. 2,500/- each per month to O.P. No. 2 and 3 for their food, medicine and clothes. It is submitted that P.W.1 and P.W.2 in the maintenance case, i.e. father and mother of the petitioners herein (O.P. No. 2 and 3 in this Criminal Revision) have falsely alleged that they have been ousted from their own house and it is wrongly stated that their sons were not keeping them properly. It is submitted that the O.P. No. 2 has filed the above case under the influence of the other family members of the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners are still ready and willing to keep O.P. No. 2 and 3, i.e. father and mother at their respective places where they are residing. It is submitted that the Petitioner No.1 is not an Accountant, rather he is a poor labour and he is earning very meagre to survive, whereas the Petitioner No. 2 is also a labour earning a small amount. It is submitted that both the petitioners are maintaining their wife and their children also. It is submitted that O.P. No. 2 is doing business of real estate and his monthly income is not less than Rs. 2,500/- per month. It is submitted that children of both the petitioners are school going children and the petitioners are somehow paying their school fee. It is submitted that Petitioner No. 2 is self employed and working as mechanic of Air Conditioner and is earning -7- Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month and has two sons and one of the sons is not keeping good health and he is under continuous treatment in Hazaribagh. It is submitted that due to the above, O.P. No. 2 and O.P. No. 3 are not entitled to get any maintenance and hence, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below may be set aside and this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed. 8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that the court has considered the entire evidence on record and has passed the order. It is submitted that O.P. No. 2 and O.P. No.3 are the own father and mother of both the petitioners and as such O.P. No. 2 and 3 are entitled to maintenance from both the petitioners and they are also entitled to maintenance towards their treatment. It is submitted that the Petitioner No. 1 is an Accountant in a shop in Hazaribagh and his monthly income is Rs.15,000/- per month and is also receiving Rs.5,000/- per month as rent, whereas Petitioner No. 2 is a mechanic-cum- Engineer and from his profession he is earning Rs.15,000/- per month and also doing odd jobs and is earning Rs.5,000/- per month. It is submitted that O.P. 2 and O.P. 3, while examined as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 in the Court below, have fully supported -8- their case. It is submitted that O.P. No. 2 and 3 were ousted from their house by both the petitioners and as such no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below while passing the impugned judgment and hence this Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and 3 has adopted the submission of the learned A.P.P. and has further submitted that this Criminal Revision is devoid of merit. It is further submitted that O.P. No. 2 and 3 are the own father and mother of both the petitioners and they have been ousted from their house which was constructed by both the O.P. No. 2 and O.P. No.3. It is submitted that P.W.1 and P.W.2, i.e. father and mother have fully supported their case and they have stated that they are living in a rented house and they are paying rent of Rs.2,000/- per month. It is submitted that being old and aged persons they are entitled to get maintenance from the petitioners. It is further submitted that O.P. No. 2 and 3 are also ill and they need proper treatment. It is submitted that the petitioners have falsely stated that they are ready to keep their father and mother, rather as a matter of fact, the father and mother were compelled to leave the house due to the acts of both the petitioners and hence this Criminal Revision may be dismissed as no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below. -9- 10. Perused the Lower Court Record and considered the submission of both the sides. 11. It transpires that O.P. 2 and 3 are father and mother of both the petitioners and they had filed Maintenance Case No. 03/2016 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh on 20.01.2016. 12. It transpires that the petitioners had appeared before the court below and filed their show cause on 20.06.2016. 13. Thereafter, O.P. No. 2 and O.P. No. 3, in support of their case, got examined two witnesses, who are as follows: i) P.W. 1 is Sahabuddin Ahamad, i.e. O.P. No. 2-father of the petitioners. ii) P.W. 2 Anjum Nisha- i.e. O.P. No. 3- mother of the petitioners, 14. However, no documentary evidence was brought on record by O.P. No. 2 and O.P. No. 3. 15. The petitioners, in support of their case, have got examined three (03) witnesses, who are as follows: i) O.P.W. 1 is Kamal Akhtar-Petitioner No.2 herein, ii) O.P.W 2 Khalid Akhtar, Petitioner No.1 herein iii) O.P.W 3 is Abdul Rehman, i.e. elder brother of O.P. No. 2. 16. However, the petitioners of this Criminal Revision application, in support of their case, got -10- marked certain documents as Exhibits, which are as follows: i) Ext. A is the certified copy of the F.I.R. of G.R. Case No. 2718 of 2011 ii) Ext. B is the certified copy of the chargesheet of G.R. Case No.2718 of 2011 iii) Ext. C is the computer generated copy of the statement of Bank Account of Sahabuddin Ahmad, i.e. O.P. No. 2. iv) Ext. D is computer generated copy of statement of Bank account of Anjum Nisha i.e. O.P. No. 3. v) Ext. E is the affidavit showing family tree, sworn by Abdul Rahman. 17. Some other documents have been marked for identification, which are as follows: i) Document marked as X are summons ii) Document marked as X/1 for identification is photocopy of application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2006) iii) Document marked as X/2 is Plaint of Misc. Case No. 10/2016. 18. Thereafter, learned Court below has passed the impugned order by directing the petitioners to pay Rs. 2,500/- each in favour of O.P. No. 2 and 3. -11- 19. So far as evidence on record is concerned, P.W.1 is Sahabuddin Ahmed, i,e, the father of the petitioners and O.P. No. 2, during his evidence has stated that he, along with his wife, had jointly filed the maintenance Case against their sons, i.e. the petitioners herein for grant of maintenance and presently they are living in a rented house on payment of rent of Rs. 2,000/- per month. It is also stated that presently he is not living in the house in which her both sons along with their family members are living and it is further stated that both their sons used to abuse and assault them and they snatched their food and other articles and even the electricity used to be also disconnected after 8 p.m. in the night and they were confined in their house. It is further stated that since 02.7.2011, he is living outside his house due to torture of his sons. He further stated that he is a patient of heart disease and also suffering from diabetes, anemia, cataract and other diseases and they have no source of income. He further stated that Petitioner No. 1 is earning Rs. 10,000/- per month by working in a medical store, whereas his other son, i.e. Petitioner No. 2 is earning Rs. 5000/- per day as he is a mechanic of Air Conditioners, but both his sons are not paying any amount for their maintenance. 20. During court’s question he has stated that his wife is sewing blouse and petticoat on order from market and the persons acquainted with him -12- used to help him economically and by which he is maintaining themselves. During cross examination he stated that he is living in a rented house and the name of his landlord is Late Samin, but he is not getting any rent receipt. It is further stated that due to assault and torture he left the house as his sons tried to take away his life and for which he has instituted a case, but he has not filed F.I.R. He has further stated that house was constructed in the year 1977-78 in which the sons are living and at that time he used to do the work of cycle repairing and his sons were aged about 4-5 years. He also stated that there are seven rooms in his house and they used to live together along with his sons and apart from this he has no other ancestral house. He had denied the suggestion that he has sold the ancestral house for Rs. 10 Lac in which the petitioners also had claim. He had denied the suggestion that Petitioner No. 1 is earning Rs.2,000/- per month and that there is no fixed source of income of Petitioner No. 2. He denied the suggestion that he is living with his daughter and son-in-law and on their instigation, he had instituted this case against his sons. He has also denied the suggestion that although his sons are ready to keep them, but he, under the influence of their daughter and son-in-law, has instituted this case for removing both his sons from the house. -13- Thus, from the evidence of P.W.1, it is evident that he is father of both the petitioners and it appears that he was compelled to leave his house, which was constructed by him. It is asserted that the Petitioner No.1 is getting salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the medical store, whereas the Petitioner No. 2 is a A.C. mechanic and who is getting Rs. 500/- per day. 21. Petitioner No. 2 is Anjum Nisha before the learned Court below and who is O.P. No. 3 before this Court. During her evidence, she has stated that she along with her husband had filed the maintenance case for getting maintenance from her sons and at present, she is living in a rented house with her husband from the year 2011 on payment of rent of Rs.2,000/- per month and they are old aged person and for most of the time they are ill and require medicine of Rs.10,000/- per month for their treatment. She has further stated that her elder son is earning Rs. 10,000/- per month while working in the shop of one Bhandari and also get Rs. 5,000/- per month as rent, whereas her younger son Kamal Akhtar is an A.C. Mechanic and is earning Rs.10,000/- per day, but both of her sons are not paying her maintenance. She has stated that she used to maintain herself and her husband by doing sewing work. She has further asserted that they have been ousted by both of their sons from their house in the year 2011 and although they want to live in their house, but her sons are not allowing them to enter -14- into the house. She has further stated that she had complained before the Panchayat, but both her sons did not abide by the decision of the Panchayat. During her cross examination she has stated that she and her husband have no bank account in Dena Bank, rather their Bank account is at Punjab National Bank, which was opened through the Government. She has denied the suggestion that her husband had not sold any piece of land on which her sons also had claim. She has denied the suggestion of instituting four cases against the petitioners. She had denied the suggestion that her sons are willing to keep them. She has denied the suggestion of selling the house in which her sons are living. She has also denied the suggestion of selling the house under the influence of her daughter and son-in-law. She has also denied the suggestion that if their sons vacate the house they will withdraw all the cases. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W. 2, it would appear that she, along with her husband, is living in the rented house since the year 2011 and her sons were not maintaining them. 22. O.P.W 1-Kamal Akhtar-Petitioner No.2 herein and during his evidence, he has stated that his parents have instituted maintenance case against them. He also stated that his father and mother are living separately in a rented house since 2011, but they are not living in their own house, where the petitioners are living. He also stated that the house in question i.e. house of the O.P. No. 2 -15- and O.P. No.3 consists of six rooms and one kitchen. He also admitted that her father is a heart patient but he does not know about having diabetes also. He admitted that he is working as a mechanic of Cooler, Fridge Washing machine, but denied of earning Rs. 5,000/- per day, rather he admitted of earning Rs. 200/- or 300/- per day. He also admitted of working in Hazaribagh District. He admitted that heart operation of his father was done. He also stated that his parents have bank account in Canara Bank and that he can file the related papers. During court question he has stated that he can furnish Bank account of O.P. No. 2 and O.P. No. 3 in the Court. During cross examination he has tried to say that O.P. No. 2 is involved in sale and purchase of the land but that he could not file any paper in the Court supporting this statement. He also could not say the name of persons who had purchased the land through his father and sold the land through his father. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of O.P.W.1, it transpires that he has also admitted that his parents are living in a rented house since the year 2011. He also admitted that house of his parents consists of six rooms and one kitchen and he and his brother is residing there and his parents are not residing there. He also admitted to be a mechanic of A.C., cooler, fridge, washing machine etc. but he had denied earning Rs. 5,000/- every day -16- and had admitted of earning Rs.200/- and 300/- every day. He also admitted that heart operation of his father was done. 23. O.P.W.No. 2 is Khalid Akhtar, i.e. Petitioner No. 1 in the present Criminal Revision and during his evidence he has stated that both the O.P. No. 2 and 3 are healthy and are able bodied person and they do not need any help. He has further stated that the land on which the house was constructed was purchased/registered in the name of his mother (O.P. No. 3). The land in question bears Khata No. 16, Plot No.488, Khata No. 33, Plot No. 487, Khata No. 98, Plot No. 489, having total area of 12 Decimal. However, in the construction of this house both the brothers have contributed economically. He also stated that his father has got a big shop of cycle and rickshaw and both the brothers have also cooperated and helped his father in running the said shop, but they have not received any amount for helping their father. He has further stated that his younger sister Nasreen had been married to one Syed Alam Ansari and after marriage she went to her Sasural. He has further stated that his sister was living in a backward area and hence he along with his brother brought her sister to his house at Hazaribagh and thereafter her sister demanded that her husband will also live with her and this demand was accepted by her parents. It is further stated that she has instigated their parents to sale the house so that she may get 75% of the share and remaining 25% will be -17- left with their mother and she also instigated them to lodge false cases against the petitioners so that they are compelled to leave the said house. It is further stated that Suit No. 61 of 2013 is pending in the court of the learned Munsif, which was later on transferred to the Court of learned Sub-Judge-I. Thereafter, his father lodged another case, bearing No. 121/2016, which was still pending in the Court of Sub Judge-I. He also stated that his mother has instituted a false case against them before the learned C.J.M., Hazaribagh, corresponding P.S. Case of which is Sadar P.S. Case No. 612 of 2011, which is still pending in the court of C.J.M. and in connection with which they had to remain in Jail and He further stated that third case was instituted under Domestic Violence Act, bearing Case No. 10/2016, which is pending in the court of the learned C.J.M., Hazaribagh. He further stated that his father has given wrong information to the police that they are a threat to the peace and harmony of the locality, however, nobody from that locality had supported his father’s allegation. He further stated that they have tried their best to bring back their parents, but they did not succeed. He had further stated that they are still ready and agreeing to maintain their parents. He further stated that his father wanted to sell the house in which they are living. It is further stated that his parents are getting handsome amount under the Social Security Scheme. He has admitted that his parents are living -18- outside their house since the year 2011. He also admitted that their father and mother are unwell and their papers of treatment are on record. He denied the suggestion of working in the shop of Bablu Bhandari. He denied the suggestion that his father has handed over his shop at Mount Carmel Chowk, Hazaribagh in the year 2000 which was run by him till the year 2008 and later on he has let the said shop on rent after taking an advance (Pagdi) payment of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- per month as rent. He stated that he had no knowledge that that their parents had incurred an expenditure of approx. 3.5 lakh towards their treatment. However, it is admitted that they are not giving maintenance to their parents and they are unable to maintain them. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of O.P. No. 2, it is clear that he has admitted that their father and mother are living in a rented housed since the year 2011. However, He denied taking rent of Rs.4,000/- from the shop situated at Mount Carmel Chowk, Hazaribagh. 24. O.P. W. 3 is Abdul Rahman, who is the elder brother of Sahabuddin Ahmad, O.P. No. 2 herein and during his evidence, he has stated that they are seven brothers living in an ancestral house, which is partitioned among the brothers and O.P. No. 2 has sold his share in ancestral house to one Mumtaz Ansari, who is younger son of his elder brother Late Wali Muhammad for Rs. 50,000/-. He -19- also stated that in the year 2014 all his brothers have sold their ancestral land for Rs.12,96,000/- and O.P. No. 2 also got his share of Rs.2,16,000/-. He also stated that as per the share allotted to O.P. No. 2 both the petitioners are entitled to get Rs. 72,000/- each, but it was kept by O.P.No.2. He further stated that he has paid Rs.30,000/- to O.P. No. 2 on his request to settle a land dispute. He further stated that his younger brother-Sahabuddin Ahmad - O.P. No. 2 is working as a broker for purchase and sale of land. He further stated that annual income of both the sons of O.P. No. 2 are Rs. 60,000/- per month and they are hard pressed. During cross examination he stated that he is giving evidence on his own. He further stated that O.P. No. 2 is under treatment but he was not unwell. He further stated that there is a partition of their ancestral land. He further claimed to file the papers for ancestral house, which was sold for Rs.12.96 lac. 25. Thus, from evidence of O.P. No.3, it would appear that he is the own brother of O.P. No. 2 i.e. father of the petitioner and has stated that O.P. No. 2 has also received Rs. 2,16,000/- as share of selling of the ancestral land and that O.P. No. 2 is working as a broker in sale and purchase of land. 26. So far as documentary evidence is concerned, Ext. A is the copy of F.I.R. of G.R. No.2718 of 2011under Section 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504, 379 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the -20- Prevention of Witch (DAAIN) Practices Act instituted by Anjum Nisha-O.P. No. 3 against the petitioners on 09.10.2011. Ext. B is the certified copy of chargesheet of Sadar G.R. No. 2718, corresponding to Sadar P.S.Case No. 612 of 2011 submitted under Sections 341, 323, 329, 448, 379, 504/34 of the I.P.C. against both the petitioners. Ext. C is the photocopy of the Bank Statement of account of Sahabuddin Ahmad, .i.e. of O.P. No. 2 at Canara Bank Ext. D is the photocopy of the account of Anjum Nisha, i.e. O.P. No. 3. Ext. E is the affidavit of family tree sworn by Abdul Rahman, i.e. O.P.W.3, elder brother of Sahabuddin Ahamed, i.e. O.P. No. 2. 27. From perusal of the evidence of O.P.W.1 and O.P.W.2 it is evident that they have claimed themselves unable to maintain their parents although they are able bodied. It is evident from the evidence of the parties and evidence of O.P.W.1 and O.P.W.2 that their parents O.P. No. 2 and O.P. No. 3 are living separately in a house on rent. 28. The F.I.R. and chargesheet further show that the mother had to institute case against the petitioners for assaulting her and her husband. It appears that although O.P. No. 2 and 3 had received certain amount i.e. Rs.2,16,000/- but it does not absolve the petitioners from the liability of maintaining their old aged parents. -21- 29. It is evident from the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W.2, i.e. the father and the mother of both the petitioners that they are living in a rented house. It is further evident from the evidence of O.P.W. 1 and O.P.W.2 that their father and mother were living separately from the petitioners since the year 2011. Thus, it is evident that petitioners are not maintaining their old father and mother. 30. It transpires from the report sent by the learned Court below that Distress Warrants were issued against the petitioners for not paying the arrears of maintenance amounting to Rs.2,54,500/-, which was issued on 20.04.2023. So, it appears from the report sent by the In-Charge, Barabazar O.P., Hazaribagh that both the petitioners are residing in the house of her mother Anjum Nisha, wife of Sahabuddin Ahmad. However, he has enclosed the certificate of Kamal Akhtar showing physical disability of 40% and has informed that Kamal was working as an electrician daily wage worker, whereas Khalid is running a cycle repairing shop near Sardar Chowk and has also submitted that the petitioners have five children who are studying and they have a normal life style. Thus, it is evident that from the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and also from the evidence of O.P.W.1 and O.P.W.2 that the old aged parents of the petitioners are living separately in a separate house since the year 2011 on rent and except making bold statement by the petitioners about keeping their old -22- aged parents, no effort has been made by the petitioners to bring them back except giving statement in their evidence and also on affidavit. 31. It is well settled that the old aged persons are also entitled to maintenance from their sons if they are not living with their sons. 32. It has been held in the case of Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India, reported in (2019) 2 SCC 636 at Paragraph No.s 36, 39 and 44 as follows: the emphasised “The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 36. While the petitioner constitutional rights available to everybody including the elderly, such as the right to live with dignity, the right to shelter and the right to adequate medical care and geriatric care, the petitioner relied, has an alternative, on statutory provisions for the existence of these rights. It was submitted by the petitioner that even if the Constitution was not to be given an expansive meaning, there are statutory rights which are enforceable by the elderly under a law made by Parliament and that is the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (the MWP Act) 39. Our attention was also drawn to Section 20 of the MWP Act which provides for medical support for senior citizens. Government hospitals or hospitals funded fully or partially by the State Government are mandated to provide beds for all senior citizens, as far as possible. Facilities for geriatric patients are also required to be earmarked by this section of the MWP Act. Section 20 of the MWP Act reads as follows: “20. Medical support for senior citizens.—The State Government shall ensure that,— (i) the government hospitals or hospitals funded fully or partially by the Government shall provide beds for all senior citizens as far as possible; (ii) separate queues be arranged for senior citizens; -23- (iii) facility for treatment of chronic, terminal and degenerative diseases is expanded for senior citizens; (iv) research activities for chronic elderly diseases and ageing is expanded; (v) there are earmarked facilities for geriatric patients in every district hospital duly headed by a medical officer with experience in geriatric care.” 44. We accept that the right to life provided for in Article 21 of the Constitution must be given an expansive meaning. The right to life, we acknowledge, encompasses several rights but for the time being we are concerned with three important constitutional rights, each one of them being basic and fundamental. These rights articulated by the petitioner are the right to live with dignity, the right to shelter and the right to health. The State is obligated to ensure that these fundamental rights are not only protected but are enforced and made available to all citizens. 33. In view of the discussions made above and the judgment of the Apex Court and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court finds that no illegality has been committed by the Court below while passing the impugned order. 34. In the result, the impugned order dated 31.05.2018, passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 03 of 2016 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh is upheld. 35. Thus, this criminal Revision is hereby dismissed. s.m. (Sanjay Prasad, J.)