IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930 RPFC.No. 211 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.193/2007 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR. .................... REVISION PETITIONER ------------------------------------ BENNY, S/O.LATE VARGHESE, AGED 39 YEARS VADAKKEMACHERYPUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE POOVAKULAM KARA, VELIYANNOOR VILLAGE, KARAMALA P.O . BY ADV. SRI.AGINOV MATHAPPAN SMT.K.SHERIN MOHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- MARY VARGHESE, W/O.LATE VARGHESE VADAKKEMACHERYPUTHENPURAYHIL HOUSE POOVAKULAM KARA, VELIYANNOOR VILLAGE KARAMALA P.O. BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 211 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July, 2008 ORDER In this R.P.(FC), the petitioner assails the direction issued to him under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- per mensem to the claimant – admittedly his mother. 2. Relationship is admitted. Separate residence is also conceded. The claimant - mother, contended that the properties belonging to the parents were allotted to the petitioner herein on the understanding that he shall maintain his parents. Father of the petitioner is no more. The mother survives. The petitioner has allegedly neglected and refused to maintain his mother. It was admitted that the properties of the parents were allotted to the petitioner. He is admittedly tapping 60 rubber trees at present. The claimant – mother, is not shown to have any income, though there is a contention R.P.(FC) No. 211 of 2008 -: 2 :- that there were amounts in her bank account and they have been withdrawn subsequently - immediately prior to the litigation. 3. The court below took into consideration of all the relevant inputs and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- per mensem to the claimant – his mother. The petitioner is allegedly aggrieved by the impugned order. 4. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claimant/mother is refusing to live with the petitioner – her son. He is willing to maintain her on condition that she returns to him. 5. I am afraid, this is not a defence permitted by law at all. So far as the wife is concerned, when she makes a claim against her husband, the husband is , in law, entitled to resist the claim for maintenance on the ground that the wife was refusing to live with him without sufficient cause in spite of the offer made by him. The parents do not have any such obligation to accept the offer of their son/daughter to live with them before such parents can successfully make a claim for maintenance. The said contention cannot legally be sustained. 6. It is then contended that the mother is not unable to R.P.(FC) No. 211 of 2008 -: 3 :- maintain herself. There is no material to show that the mother is getting any income from any source. Of course, it is true that the evidence reveals that the mother had amounts in her account and the same was withdrawn. She has offered an explanation that the said amount did not belong to her; but it belongs to one of her daughters. The same had been withdrawn and released to such daughter. In any view of the matter, it is significant to note that there is no material to show that the mother/claimant had any independent source of income for herself. This contention cannot also hence be accepted. 7. Thirdly and finally, it is contended that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction that I am called upon to invoke and exercise. Unless the findings of fact and the discretion exercised by the subordinate courts are grossly erroneous or perverse and such vice, in turn, leads to miscarriage of justice, a court of revision exercising supervisory and correctional jurisdiction should not and cannot lightly invoke its correctional jurisdiction. I find no such vice in the impugned order which can justify invocation of such correctional jurisdiction. Going by the materials available about the needs of the claimant or the means of the petitioner, the quantum of R.P.(FC) No. 211 of 2008 -: 4 :- maintenance awarded cannot also be said to be excessive. 8. The claimant appears to have valid and satisfactory reasons as to why she should raise such a claim against the petitioner herein alone. Admittedly, the properties of the parents have been allotted to the petitioner herein with the attendant liability that he should maintain them. In such situation, if the claimant/mother had chosen not to stake a claim against other children and has chosen to claim only against the petitioner herein, such choice cannot be branded as irrational or perverse; nor can such a contention help the petitioner to avoid liability or claim reduction of the amount of maintenance which is fixed very reasonably at the rate of Rs.750/- per mensem by the court below. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the impugned order does not warrant interference. 9. This R.P.(FC) is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge