( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 845 OF 2008 Shivaji s/o Ramrao Kale, Age 48 years, Occupation Service, Resident of H. No. 125, Near Baliram High School, CIDCO, Aurangabad PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. Ramrao s/o Patilba Kale, Age 65 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Salunkheda, Taluka Khultabad, District Aurangabad 2. Sow. Jankabai w/o Ramrao Kale, Age 60 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of as above. RESPONDENTS Mr. P.V.Mandlik, learned Senior counsel holding for Mr. Amol S. Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. Manjusha Deshpande, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2 CORAM : A.V.NIRGUDE,J. DATED : 19th April, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, petition ( 2 ) is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner is son of the respondents, who had initiated a proceeding for maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner. The Courts below held that the petitioner should pay Rs.1500/- per head to the respondents. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner brought my attention to ground No. 7 of the petition. He asserted that the factual aspects of the case are not properly appreciated by the Courts below. In ground No. 7, the petitioner stated, as to how his own immediate family needsthe meager amount he earned and how he is unable to pay the amount, which he is ordered to pay to his parents. It is also mentioned that the respondents have another son, and despite of the fact that they are residing with that son, the petitioner is targeted out of spite. 4. The Courts below considered the factual aspect of the case, especially the financial capability of the petitioner to pay the ordered amount. Having gone through the reasons in the Judgment, I do not think any interference is required therein. 5. As regards the second son, the respondents have, the Law is also settled that the parents can file a petition under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure against any one of their children. The Courts below had regard to the fact that the respondents do not stay permanently with their second son and are required to stay in Old Age Hermitage also. 6. The petitioner also took up a stand that the respondent No.1 / his ( 3 ) father is addicted to liquor for many years and that he required the amount for meeting his expenses for liquor. Even this defence is taken into account by the Courts below and the reasons mentioned in the Judgment, do not call for any interference. 7. The petition, therefore, cannot survive. Petition is dismissed. The amount which is deposited by the petitioner in the Court shall immediately be paid to the respondents. Rule discharged. [A.V.NIRGUDE,J.] SRM/criwp/845/08