Kerala High Court
Kuriakose @ Baby vs Mani on 4 July, 2006
Author: R. Basant
Bench: R.Basant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP(Family Court) No. 38 of 2006()
1. KURIAKOSE @ BABY, S/O. MANI,
... Petitioner
2. JOHNY, S/O. MANI,
3. BOBAN, S/O. MANI,
Vs
1. MANI, S/O. KURIAKOSE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.P.K.BEHANAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/07/2006
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.P.(F.C)Nos. 38, 39 & 69 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2006
O R D E R
These revision petitions filed by the rival contestants are directed against a common order passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam in the petitions filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C. By the impugned order the prayer of the claimant/father to enhance the maintenance amount from Rs.300/- to Rs.1,500/- was allowed in part. The same was raised to Rs.1,200/- p.m. The claim of the respondents
- three male children - to cancel the order directing payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.300/- p.m. was rejected by the court below. The children have preferred revisions against the orders in both cases, whereas the father has preferred revision against the refusal to grant him enhanced maintenance at the rate claimed by him.
2. The disputes between the father and the children have by now had a chequered career. As early as in 1987 the father claimed R.P.(F.C)Nos. 38, 39 & 69 of 2006 2 maintenance against his three male children. They were directed to pay Rs.150/- p.m. Later in the second round, both filed applications for cancellation/enhancement of maintenance. In 1990 the maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs.300/- p.m. Long later, in 2003, the present applications were filed by the claimant/father to raise the amount to Rs.1,500/- and by the children/respondents to reduce and cancel the maintenance awarded.
3. The claimant/father examined himself as PW1. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. One of the children/respondents examined himself as RW1 and a local Revenue official was examined as RW2. Exts.B1 to B3 were marked.
4. The learned Judge of the Family Court, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the claimant/father is entitled to get enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,200/- p.m. and that the prayer to cancel the maintenance cannot be favourably entertained.
5. Laborious arguments have been advanced by the counsel for the R.P.(F.C)Nos. 38, 39 & 69 of 2006 3 rival contestants. The claimant has become older by more than a decade. It is absolutely reasonable to conclude that his ability to work and support himself, if any, must have got further reduced with the passage of time. The quantum of maintenance will hencehave to be increased considering passage of time. In these circumstances I am of the opinion that the learned Judge of the Family Court committed no error warranting invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction to interfere with the impugned order.
6. The learned counsel for the children submits that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. I cannot afford to ignore the fact that each major adult son has to pay only Rs.400/- p.m. to maintain the father. It has come out in evidence that the claimant/father has three more children in another lady. I shall assume that the claimant/father can, if he wants, direct his claims against such children also. But even assuming that he can get identical amounts from such children, I am not persuaded to agree that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive considering the inputs available about the needs of the old father and the means of the young R.P.(F.C)Nos. 38, 39 & 69 of 2006 4 children/respondents.
7. Evidently there is bitter acrimony between the contestants. The claimant/father, it would appear, did not conduct himself as a dutiful father in his younger days. But maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has its foundation on the status of the claimant and not for what the claimant had done earlier in favour of his children. Even the most irresponsible father, who had neglected the children, will be entitled for maintenance if the requisite circumstances are established. The fact that the father had been negligent earlier in maintaining the children, cannot be held to be a valid defence to refuse or resist the claim for maintenance of the father. The prayer for cancellation of maintenance is found to be without any substance.
8. The counsel for the claimant/father contends that the claim for enhancement should have been allowed as prayed for. I do not find any merit in that contention also. At any rate, the discretion exercised by the learned Judge of the Family Court does not warrant interference by invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. R.P.(F.C)Nos. 38, 39 & 69 of 2006 5
9. The inevitable conclusion is that these revision petitions deserve to be and are hereby dismissed.
(R. BASANT) Judge tm