Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID FRIDAY, THE14H DAY OF FEBRUARY201425TH MAGHA, 1935 RPFC.No. 95 of 2010 --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER
DATED2912.2009 PASSED IN MC1672009 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM REVISION PETITIONER/ 1ST COUNTER PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------- RAGHAVAN, KOMBOLICKAL HOUSE, RAMAPURAM P.O., KONDADU VELLILAPALLY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 2ND COUNTER AFFIDAVIT: ----------------------------------------------- 1. KAUSALYA, W/O. LATE PADMANABHAN, MUTHIRAKALAYIL HOUSE, RAMAPURAM P.O., KONDADU, VELLILAPALLY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.
2. JANARDHANAN, KUMBOLIKAL HOUSE, RAMAPURAM P.O., KONDADU, VELLILAPALLY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.K.HARIDAS R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.YADHU KUMAR BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.GITHESH THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1402-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RPFC.No. 95 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE: ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
IN M.C.NO.167/2009 DATED2912.2009 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab P.UBAID, J.
------------------------------- R.P(FC) No.95 of 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of February, 2014 ORDER
The mother's claim for maintenance against two sons was allowed by the Family Court, Kottayam as per order dated 29.12.2009 in M.C.No.167/2009, granting maintenance at the rate of 2,000/- per month, payable by the two sons in equal proportion. Aggrieved by the said order, one of the sons has come up in revision.
2. The only ground on which the order of trial court is challenged by the revision petitioner is that his mother has her own property and income therefrom. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the mother has 20 cents of property of her own. One could imagine how much income a property of 20 cents would yield. Admittedly, the mother is now aged about 70 years, and she has no other source of income. If at all she has 20 cents of property of her own, there is nothing to show that the said property would yield sufficient income for her to live on.
3. This is not a case where wife claims maintenance from her husband. This is a case where an aged mother claims maintenance from her sons. She has three R.P(FC) No.95 of 2010 2 sons and one daughter. Just because she has not claimed maintenance from the daughter and the other son, the revision petitioner and the other son cannot decline maintenance to their mother. They are bound to maintain their mother, and they cannot have any defence except that the mother has her own source of income. In the absence of anything to prove any such source of income, the sons are liable to maintain their mother.
4. What is awarded by the trial court is only 2,000/- out of which the amount payable by the revision petitioner is 1,000/-. It has come out in evidence that this revision petitioner and his brother are affluent enough. Even if they do not have any business activity or job, one would not find it difficult to pay 1,000/- to his mother every month. This Court does not find any reason to interfere in the order of the court below, and this Court finds that maintenance was rightly awarded to the mother by the court below. This Revision Petition is meritless and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this Revision Petition is dismissed. P.UBAID JUDGE ab