IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 RPFC.No. 18 of 2009() --------------------- MC.244/2006 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTAPURAM DTD.18/09/2008 .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------ SHEELA DAMODARAN, W/O. LATE DAMODARAN, AGED 73 YEARS, BABILI HOUSE, ATTINKUZHI, ATTIPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- ANIL, S/O. LATE DAMODARAN, AGED 45 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE AND ATTORNEY LATHA ANIL, MUKUL NIVAS, PALLINADA, KAZHAKUTTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/03/2009 ALONG WITH RP(FC) NO.108 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== R.P.(FC) Nos.18 & 108 OF 2009 ===================== Dated this the 20th day of March 2009 O R D E R Both these revision petitions arise out of the order in M.C.No.244 of 2006 of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram.. The mother has filed a claim for maintenance against the son and the court has ordered a sum of Rs.1,000/- to be paid as maintenance. Dissatisfied with the quantum, the mother has filed R.P.(FC)No.18 of 2009 and dissatisfied with the order itself, the son has filed RP(FC) No.108 of 2009 to cancel that order. The brief facts would reveal that the mother is aged 73 years and she is having some ailment. She is residing with her eldest son. The contention of the mother is that the son is very well employed in gulf country and he is having a substantial income of Rs.60,000/- and therefore she had claimed a maintenance amount of Rs.2,500/- per month. It has come out in evidence that he is only a driver by profession who is having 1500 darnams of salary in the United Arab Emirates which is equivalent to Rs.16,500/-. He has got two children, one who has completed Engineering and has joined for MBA in the Amrita Institute of Technology and Management and the other child RP(FC)18 & 108/2009 -:2:- is studying for graduation. As one is aware, educating the children under the present set up is very costly, but that does not mean that the mother who had given birth to the child should be totally neglected. The courts always strike a balance in these type of cases. It is submitted that the mother has filed cases against other children also and they are pending. It is contended that she has filed cases at the instigation of the eldest daughter in law of the house. Whatever it may be, when the mother seeks for help, it is the duty of the son to help the mother, that too, in an advanced stage of oldness. But, what is the amount to be paid also has to be gathered from the materials available. A man working abroad and getting a salary of Rs.16,500/- may have to spend sizeable amount for his own expenses. He is also bound to look after his wife and children who are totally depending upon him and it is the minimum responsibility of a father to provide proper education to the children. In this case, the children are studying well and they are studying in good institutions where one has to pay substantial fees. So, taking the over all circumstances into consideration and the need of the mother and the fact that she is looked after by one of the sons, the court below considered Rs.1,000/- is a proper amount that can be ordered. I consider it as extremely reasonable amount which neither calls for enhancement nor for decrease. Therefore I affirm the order of the Family Court and dismiss both the RP(FC)18 & 108/2009 -:3:- revision petitions. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-