IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.566 of 2007 1. SURENDRA SINGH, SON OF LATE HARESH NARAIN SINGH 2. SHAKUNTALA DEVI @ SHAKUNTALA SINHA, WIFE OF SRI SURENDRA SINGH 3. SARDENDU SINGH @ SARDENDU PRASAD SINHA SON OF SRI SURENDRA SINGH, ALL RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA KADAMKUAN, JAHAJI KOTHI, NEAR DEVI MANDIR, P.S. KADAMKUAN, PATNA Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. AMAN KUMAR SON OF DIWESHENDU PRASAD SINHA UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS MATERNAL GRAND FATHER OF SRI RAM CHANDRA PRASAD SHAHI, RESIDENT OF AT+P.O. MIRIAPUR BENDUAR, P.S. BEGUSARAI TOWN, BEGUSARAI 3. SRI DWITENDU PD. SINHA SON OF SRI SURENDRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA KADAM KUAN, JAHAJI KOTHI, P.S. KADAMKUAN, PATNA OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioners :Mr.Gajanand Arun & :Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh For o.p. no.2 :Mr.Nachiketa Jha For the State :Mrs. Sharda Kumari, APP ----------- 08. 04.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and o.p.no.2. Nobody has appeared on behalf of o.p.no.3. Petitioners herein are grand father, grand mother and uncle of o.p. no.2. By order impugned dated 18.11.2006, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai in Maintenance Case No. 41M/2004 (Aman Kumar(minor) vs. Sri Dvitendu Pd. Sinha & Ors), learned court below has directed for payment of maintenance to o.p.no.2 in the sum of Rs.5000/- per month which is directed against the father of o.p.no.2 as well as the present petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners assails the order on the ground that in terms of provision contained in section 2 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(for short ‘the Code’) the grand father or grand mother or uncle cannot be commanded to pay amount of maintenance of o.p.no.2 who is the son of o. p. no.3. Learned counsel submits with reference to the impugned order that there is a finding in the order that the father himself is earning handsome amount. It appears that the father has not assailed the impugned order. If the impugned order is set aside considering the scope and ambit of section 125 of the Code, the same shall still survive as against the father who has been impleaded in the present proceeding as o.p.no.3. Learned counsel for o.p.no.2, on the other hand, submits that although the petitioners herein cannot be commanded under section 125 of the Code, but the o.p.no.2 being a member of the coparcenery, would be entitled to receive the maintenance from the family. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no finding in the impugned order that there is jointness in between petitioners herein and o.p.no.3. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and also keeping in view the scope and ambit of provision contained in section 125 of the Code, this Court has no hesitation in holding that invoking the said jurisdiction the court can command the petitioners herein to pay maintenance. This Court is mindful of the fact that the father of o.p.no.2 has not challenged the present order. In the event of interfering with 3 the impugned order the same will survive as against the father of o.p.no.2. who has been impleaded in the present proceeding as o.p.no.3 and has not chosen to appear and contest. For all these reasons, this Court allow the present application. Impugned order dated 18th November,2006, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai in Maintenance Case No. 41M/2004 is hereby quashed and set aside only against petitioners herein. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )