Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. MMO No.94 of 2008 Dated of Decision: August 11, 2008. Anil Kumar. …..… Petitioner. Versus Rukmani Devi. ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate. For the Respondents : None. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The respondent is the mother of the petitioner, aged about 70 years, who is unable to maintain herself. She filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking maintenance from her son i.e. the present petitioner. Alongwith the main petition, she also filed an application seeking the interim maintenance to which petitioner also filed reply. Vide order dated 9.4.08, the application of the respondent-mother was allowed and she was awarded the interim maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month w.e.f. 14.11.2007. The petitioner assailed the said order by filing criminal revision petition No.11/2008 before the learned Sessions Judge, which was dismissed vide order dated 5.7.2008. 2 Now the instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders of the interim amount, on the grounds that both the courts below have committed grave error by not taking into consideration that the respondent has two sons who were equally liable to maintain their mother and the maintenance amount was granted without giving an opportunity to the petitioner. Both the grounds are worth rejecting for the reasons that the order passed by the trial court clearly demonstrates that the reply to the interim application was filed by the petitioner herein. He had contested the said application and after hearing the parties, the interim maintenance order was passed. Secondly, when parents have more than one son they can claim maintenance from any son and the question of non- discharging of parent’s obligation cannot be raised to contest the maintenance application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, I do not find any error of jurisdiction or judgment in the orders of the courts below, thus, this petition is dismissed. Cr.M.P. No.499/2008. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, this application has become infructuous. August 11, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.