Remember | Register | Forgot Password?
Bookmark This Page   RSS Feeds  Follow On Twitter

 

Search for Lawyers          
    

Home > Experts > Criminal Law > U/s 125 crpc maintainence of parents



Please Wait ..

U/s 125 crpc maintainence of parents (Criminal Law)

Report Abuse
This query is : Resolved


Author : Anonymous

Posted On 27 October 2011 at 23:53

what is the responsibility of one son to maintain parents if the parents have gifted the property to the other son




Expert : Devajyoti Barman

Posted On 28 October 2011 at 00:04

Any or each of the sons have responsibility to maintain his parents.
It is the wish of the parents to choose from theirs sons to fix the burden of liability.
The gift would not come to rescue the son.



Expert : arvind

Posted On 28 October 2011 at 08:02

I do go with Barman Sir.



Expert : Shailesh Kr. Shah

Posted On 28 October 2011 at 08:07

Moreover, If parents can claim maintenance under the the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens act 2007, Son is also liable to pay.



Expert : prabhakar singh

Posted On 28 October 2011 at 08:39

Yes!Mr. Shah is right and remedy suggested by him is also available.The son gifted with property can be burdened to revert back the gift under Act suggested by Mr. Shah.

Although on its face it appears to be choice of the parents to target the son to become liable for their maintenance BUT i do not think if there is some bias in this respect and other sons are shown with more income then even court will not ask parents to array those sons too and that asking so would be frowned as inequitable by supervisory High or Supreme Court.



Expert : ajay sethi

Posted On 28 October 2011 at 10:04

agree with mr shailesh shah .



Expert : Advocate Bhartesh goyal

Posted On 28 October 2011 at 10:37

Parents can claim maintenance from any of their sons or from all, it is their choice.Receiving gift does not relieve son to perform his duty/burden



Author : Anonymous

Posted On 28 October 2011 at 14:52

maintenance by parents can be claimed if they are unable to maintain themselves. if hey have the property to gift to one son which could have been able to maintain them then it reveals the malafide intentions to amass wealth and to harass the other son and they are misusing their age by giving fun time to one son and harassment and defamation to the other son which needs to be curtiled. even in the maintainence of senior citizens act 2007 the share of maintainec is divided according to share of the property which has been inherited by each of the sons.mr. burman opinion does not seem tenable in the context. also mr. shah should refer to the act of 2007 where amount of property transferred has a significant meaning in fixing the responsibility



Expert : Shonee Kapoor

Posted On 28 October 2011 at 18:57

Anonymous, your interpretation of the statute is perfect for Senior Citizen Act.

However, the expert opinion is strictly based upon the definition of CrPC 125.

A property once gifted does not remain the property of the person who has gifted it and hence can not draw any benefits out of it. Senior Citizen Act just protects the senior citizens if none of the children wants to maintain them and they have already gifted the property.

However CrPC 125 is a remedy which is enforceable against any of the sons.

Regards,

Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com



Author : Anonymous

Posted On 28 October 2011 at 23:59

thanks for the response mr. shonee. you may be right to a great extent but my point is that if the parents didnot have any thing to maintain themselves then in the first instance why did they gift the the property to one son only which was done say about four years back and then they have been living comfortably since then and after about 3years of acquiring the property when that son disposed of the property a year later they lodged a case of maintainence on the other son which smells of the malafide intentions by the parents to give fortune to one son and give hard time to the other without keeping any thing for themselves



Expert : amrit

Posted On 18 March 2013 at 16:46

i dont agree with these responses. definitely the parents have every right to target and harass one son while sparing the others. but you can be burdened with your own share whereas the parents can seek maintenance from other sons if it is insufficient. you can establish that the parents are trying to harass you and extort money for their other sons. Law does not permit, injustice and discrimination by parents provided that the other sons should also be financially well off. ultimately you shall have to pay your own share and cant be burdened with other's share. but there is one condition, the other sons should also be financially well off. you can cite case laws such as Mehboobkhan vs Babarkhan And Ors. on 23 June, 2003
Equivalent citations: I (2004) DMC 224
and AIR 2010, NOC 438(Mad), there are also many case laws that section 125 has overriding effect on personal laws when invoked by any party. I am myself suffering this menace, however, i have kept the damage to the minimum but legally too much harrased due to appeals and enhancements etc.


Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved Lawyersclubindia expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login ( Members Login ) now







Similar Queries :










Quick Links



Browse By Category



Subscribe to Experts Feed
Enter your email to receive Experts Updates:







web analytics