A Delhi court has come to the rescue of a city-based businessman's aged and ailing parents and ordered him to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs9,000 to the elderly couple.
Additional sessions judge Rajneesh Kumar Gupta ordered Ramesh Nagar resident Girish Saluja to pay his parents Mahesh Kumar and Veena Saluja Rs4,500 each every month, dismissing his plea challenging a magisterial court's interim order for maintenance.
Endorsing the magisterial court's order, Gupta said the amount is not "unreasonable or excessive".
"Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, the interim maintenance of Rs4,500 per month each to the respondents (mother-father) cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive," Gupta said.
The judge dismissed Saluja's petition against the order of magisterial court passed last October under the provisions of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), providing for maintenance to estranged or divorced wife, minor children or dependent parents.
"I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial court and it is upheld. The revision petition is without any merits and it is dismissed," the ASJ said.
The magisterial court ordered Saluja to pay Rs9,000 monthly maintenance to his parents on a plea by the senior citizens, who told the court that they are suffering from heart problems and do not have means of livelihood.
"Girish (son) has neglected and refused to maintain us though he is earning around Rs two lakh per month," the parents had alleged in their complaint before the court.
During adjudication of his parents' plea, Girish admitted that he owns and runs a shop at Moti Nagar here, but showing his I-T return, contended that his annual income was merely Rs1.6 lakhs.
He also contended that his father himself owns a shop at Moti Nagar besides having an additional income from the business of Tanjore gold paintings. He, however, failed to prove his contentions.
Girish, in his defence, said that despite the fact that his parents have their own business, he was sending Rs3,000 every month to them as per their family settlement.
The court, however, rejected his contentions and said, "There is no material on record to show prima facie that the respondents (parents) have sufficient means to maintain themselves as there is no record to show that they have earnings from the business as alleged by petitioner (Girish)."