IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 RPFC.No. 75 of 2003() --------------------- MC.244/2002 of OF THE FAMILY COURT MANJERI .................... REVISION PETITIONER (S) /PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------------- UNNIVELU, S/O. THAYYIL APPUNNI, ANCHACHAVIDI, THATTANKUNNU, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT & STATE: ---------------------------------- 1. SUBRAMANIAN, S/O. UNNIVELU, PALAPPARAMBIL P.O., KATTUMUNDA, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.AMJAD ALI BY ADVS.MR.V.V.ASOKAN FOR R1 MR.E.M.UNNIKRISHNAN (MANJERI) FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- R.P(F.C)No. 75 OF 2003 --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2009 O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C. 244/2002. The unfortunate father and son are involved in a litigation whereby the father had claimed maintenance against the son and it has been dismissed by the court below. It is against that decision the father has come up in revision. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner very strongly contends before me that the aged father is in a pathetic condition and the son is employed and therefore justice requires an order of maintenance in his favour. On the contra, the respondent's counsel would contend that the father is a wealthy person at any rate better than the son and he has immovable property and therefore he is not entitled to maintenance. So who is in a better position is the sole question for consideration. Ext. D1 is a document executed in the year 1979 in favour of the present revision petitioner with respect to 1 acre and 1 cent of land . Ext. D2 is an assignment deed executed by the father of R.P(F.C) 75/2003 -2- the revision petitioner in his favour in 1992 which would indicate that the father had assigned three items of property having an extent of 9 cents, 20 cents and 2 ½ cents. So in short the revision petitioner is having an extent of 1 acre and 31 ½ cents of land. When confronted with the difficult situation he would contend that Ext. D1 property is barren land and it is not cultivated. According to him Ext. D2 property is sold away. Neither with respect to Ext. D1 property nor Ext. D2 property there is any document to show or evidence adduced to establish that it is lying barren and it is in the hands of 3rd person. So Exts. D1 and D2 stares at the face of the revision petitioner. Then it is contended that his wife had attacked him and she had undergone imprisonment for a period of two years. The son also admits about the conviction. But whether on account of the injuries sustained he has become disabled is not proved and there is no medical evidence tendered much less any acceptable evidence tendered to establish that fact. It is true that the father is having a mentally retarded child with him. According to the son, himself and his mother were driven out of the house by the R.P(F.C) 75/2003 -3- father. So it is clear from the materials available that the father is having landed property to an extent of 1 acre and 31 ½ cents. On the contra though it is alleged that the son is a checker in a bus, it is not proved at all. He contend that he is only a coolie labour not having much income and he had to look after his mother, wife and children. So as analysed by the court below the father comparatively appears to be in a better position than the son and therefore the son will not be in a position to maintain the father. So from these materials, I do not find any mistake committed by the court below in dismissing the petition. Therefore the R.P(F.C) lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm