J 1 This appeal has been directed against the order dated April 12, 1993 passed by a learned single judge of Gujarat High Court in a Special Criminal Application No.
496 of 1993 dismissing the petition of the appellant, affirming the judgment dated march 23, 1993 passed by the City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.
2 Niranjan and Bharat were carrying on business of selling clothes and books respectively on the payments of Bombay and appellants father Danyalal Hirachand was engaged in selling Rasna Chemicals, Detergent Powder, Cello tape, Readymade frocks etc.
and on that basis recorded the finding that Danyalal Hirachand was a wealthy and rich person and the main dispute between them was with regard to distribution of shares in the properties and, therefore, he was number entitled for any maintenance from the appellant, The learned Magistrate companysequently dismissed his maintenance petition, In the revisional Court.
The appellant companytested the said application by pleading that besides the 5 sons from the second wife who are all earning members, his father himself was a person of sufficient means and assets and, therefore, the appellant was number liable to pay any maintenance allowance.
The appellant companytested by denying that the natural born sons of respondent number 2 had meagre income and were number possessed of sufficient means to maintain themselves and their parents and pleaded, inter alia, that they were well of with sufficient means to provide maintenance.
The learned Magistrate on evaluation of evidence found that Dilip, one of the natural born sons of the respondent No.
Subsequently, another maintenance petition was jointly filed by appellants father Danyalal Hirachand and his second wife Smt.
all the 5 sons and daughters from the above named wife second wife are major.
338 of 1992, arising out of an order dated October 16, 1992, arising out of an order dated October 16, 1992 passed by the Metropolitan magistrate.
This order has been upheld by the learned City Session Judge and the High Court as stated earlier against which this appeal by leave of this Court has been preferred.
Manjulaben and her husband Danyalal Hirachand claimed maintenance from the appellant by companytending that the appellant was brought up and educated by them and was drawing a handsome salary as the Manager of the Bank and since they are number possessed of sufficient means to maintain themselves and that their 3 sons from Smt.
2 herein, had companytested the Municipal Election, while the other two natural born sons of respondent No.
190 of 1984 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Surendra Nagar, claiming maintenance from his son, the appellant, companytending that the appellant was serving as a Manager in Central Bank of India and was earning Rs.
Manjulapen as his second wife, from whom 5 sons and 2 daughters were born.
2 herein, have meagre income from their small business and the 2 youngest sons had recently companypleted their studies but were unemployed and.
108/ per month as rent from tenants and that he had shown his monthly income of Rs.
He had received 52,000/ as companysideration for sale of his houses and possessed some jewellery etc.
When the appellant was a child of tender age, his mother expired and after about an year, Danyalal Hirachand took respondent No.2.
2 being a step mother of the appellant, she had right to claim maintenance from the appellant and awarded a sum of Rs.
5,000/ per month in addition to rental income of Rs.1,000/ per month.
180/ per month as salary to his servant and was also getting Rs.
400/ per month as maintenance allowance to her from the date of the petition.
However, the trial Magistrate took the view that inspite of respondent No.
Manjulaben, the step mother of the appellant.
7, Ahmedabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.
Manjulaben respondent No.2 claiming a sum of Rs.
550/ per month in the Ration Card.
The appellant is the son of Danyalal Hirachand Vadodaria from his first wife.
Before dealing with the rival companytentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to set out the facts briefly.
500/ per month as maintenance from the appellant.
2 Smt.
first of all, Dayalal Hirachand, the father of the appellant alone made a Miscellaneous Application No.
Faizan Uddin.
a settlement was arrived at between the father and the appellant.
Court.
therefore, the appellant was liable for their maintenance.
The respondent No.
Manjulaben, respondent No.
163 of 1989 awarding maintenance to respondent number 2, Smt.
out of which the present appeal arises.
and was giving Rs.
