It is not a defence for the child to contend that the parent is not residing with him and that he/she will maintain the parent only if the parent is so willing to reside with him.
First of all it is contended that the claimant is residing
separately without sufficient cause. The contention stems from
a very basic misconception that like the wife the mother is also
bound to stay with the child from whom she claims maintenance
to justify her claim. There is nothing in the provisions of Section
125 Cr.P.C which can even remotely suggest that a child against
whom the claim for maintenance is staked by the parent can
resist the claim successfully on the plea that the parent is
refusing to live with him/her. Such a plea is not recognised by
law at all. Individuality of the hapless parent is recognised by
law and the law does not oblige or compel such claimant/parent
to necessarily reside with the child to entitle him/her to claim
maintenance. The absence of a provision similar to Section 125
(3) (its second proviso), 125(4) and 125(5) Cr.P.C in respect of
the parents is in this context significant
