1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Madhav Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1899/2009) Date of Order :- 05th October, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Ripu Daman Singh Naruka, for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 20.11.2008 & dated 11.08.2009 passed by the Family Court. By the former order, the Family Court has increased the maintenance amount from Rs.500/- per mensem to Rs.1000/- per mensem and directed the petitioner pay the same to his father, the respondent No.2. By the latter order, the learned Family Court has directed attachment of the petitioner's property and for the recovery of Rs.4,000/- which was owed by the petitioner to his father. Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently raised the following contentions before this court : firstly, he has been regularly paying the maintenance to his father. However, despite his regular payment, the learned Judge has directed the attachment of his property. Secondly, he is willing to keep his father with him. However, his father refuses to live with him and prefers to stay separately. Thirdly, all the brothers together are paying maintenance to the father. The total amount is more than the upper limit prescribed by law. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. A bare perusal of the order dated 11.08.2009 clearly reveals that the petitioner had raised the same plea before the Family Court namely that he has been regularly paying the maintenance amount to his father. However, neither before the Family Court, nor before this Court, the petitioner has submitted an iota of evidence to prove this fact. Therefore, despite the order dated 20.11.2008, the petitioner has failed to pay Rs.4,000/- to the respondent No.2. Hence, the learned Judge was legally justified in issuing the attachment order against the petitioner. The petitioner's plea that he is willing to keep his father, is merely an afterthought. In case, he were willing to keep his father and in case, his father still refuses to live with him, there is no reason why the petitioner should not pay the maintenance amount to his father as ordered by the court vide order dated 20.11.2008. Therefore, his plea that he is willing to keep his father is merely a pretense before this court. The contention raised by the learned counsel that the maintenance amount being paid by all the three brothers is higher than the upper limit prescribed by law, is also unacceptable. The petitioner has to worry about himself, and not about his other brothers. The learned Judge had increased the maintenance amount from Rs.500/- per month to Rs.1000/- per month. Thus, the learned Judge has not gone beyond the upper limit as prescribed by law. Hence, the said plea raised by the learned counsel is unsustainable. 3 It is, indeed, tragic to see that the petitioner, who is the son of respondent No.2, has defaulted in paying the maintenance amount to his own father. It is not only the legally duty of a son to maintenance his aged parents, it is also his moral duty to do so. The patents, who must have sacrificed moments of happiness, must have spent their hard earned money on the children, do deserve better treatment from the children, when the aged parents have entered the twilight zone of their life. Despite all the materialism in this country, the people cannot forget the rich tradition of this country, where sons have devoted their lives to their parents. The ideals found in the Puranic story and in the epics are not idols to be worship in temples, but are ideal role model to be emulated in one's personal life. Under these facts and circumstances, and for the reasons stated above, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-