IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 4 of 2008() -------------------- MC.148/2007 of Family Court, Kasaragod .................... : REVISION PETITIONER ------------------------------------ 1. RAMA NAIK K., S/O LAKU NAIK, SAYA KURTHADKA, P.O.ADYANADUKA, ENMAKAJE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DIST. 2. KRISHNA NAIK.K., S/O LAKU NAIK, EMPLOYEE TELEPHONE EXCHANGE MULKEY, UDUPPI. 3. NARAYANA NAIK, S/O LAKU NAIK, H.NO. 12/365/18(3), SANJAYAGIRI, B.C.ROAD, B.MOODA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, PIN-203572. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON RESPONDENTS: ------------- LAKU NAIK, S/O THIMMA NAIK, C/O KRISHNA NAIK, P.O.KALLAKATTA, VIA. VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.4 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May 2008 O R D E R The petitioners are children of the respondent. They challenged an order passed by the Family Court directing payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/-, Rs.750/- and Rs.750/- respectively to the respondent, their father. 2. Relationship is admitted. It is admitted unambiguously that ten years earlier the three children had agreed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- per mensum to the claimant/father. According to the claimant/father, he was unable to maintain himself and his children who were having sufficient means were refusing and neglecting to pay maintenance to him. In these circumstances, it is prayed that directions may be issued under Section 125 Cr.P.C in their favour. The claimant examined himself as PW1. One of the children examined himself as RW1. No other evidence was adduced. It is admitted that the first petitioner is a mason by profession. Second and third petitioners are employed in a bank and in the telecom department. R.P.F.C.No.4/08 2 3. The learned Judge of the Family Court on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs came to the conclusion that the claimants are bound to pay maintenance to their father. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that direction to pay maintenance at the rates referred above would be perfectly justified. Accordingly, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the claimant cannot be said to be a person unable to maintain himself. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on answers given in cross-examination by the claimant which suggests that he has a property measuring three acres. It is the case of the respondent that he does not get any income from that property. No better details are available about the income that he receives from the property. There is also a crucial circumstance that the children who must be presumed to have knowledge about the means of the father had agreed ten years earlier that Rs.750/-per mensum shall be paid to the father. I R.P.F.C.No.4/08 3 am called upon to exercise the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. Unless there is failure of justice and gross impropriety, such jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be invoked by this court. Having considered all the relevant circumstances the direction to pay an amount of Rs.500/-, Rs.750/- and Rs.750/- respectively issued to the three children/sons cannot in the circumstances of this case be said to work out any injustice or hardship. The said direction does appear to me to be absolutely justified and fair. The mere fact that the father had admitted that he had three acres of land in his name cannot by itself, in the facts and circumstances of this case lead to the conclusion that the father is not a person unable to maintain himself especially in the light of the admitted circumstance that there was an agreement to pay an amount of Rs.750/- per mensum as maintenance to the claimant ten years back. The quantum of maintenance awarded does also appear to me to be absolutely justified. 6. This petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge R.P.F.C.No.4/08 4 R.P.F.C.No.4/08 5 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008