IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.3.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.R.C.No.387 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009 1. M.Ramasamy Gounder 2. Kaliyammal .. Petitioners Vs. Palanimalai .. Respondent Criminal Revision Case against the order dated 4.2.2009 in Crl.R.P.No.30 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Namakkal, against the order dated 28.9.2007 in M.C.No.3 of 2007 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Namakkal. For petitioners : Mr.D.Shivakumaran For respondent: Mr.D.Vairamoorthy ORDER Criminal Revision Case against the order dated 4.2.2009 in Crl.R.P.No.30 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Namakkal, whereby the maintenance of Rs.750/- p.m. was ordered each to the petitioners to be paid from the date of maintenance case and the said amount of Rs.750/- had been reduced from Rs.1,500/- p.m. granted by order dated 28.9.2007 in M.C.No.3 of 2007 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Namakkal. 2. The averments in the petition for maintenance are as follows: The petitioners are the parents of the respondent. The respondent-son has taken fraudulent land and allotted 1.10 acres of land to the petitioners, which is not fit for cultivation. Since the petitioners-parents are aged, they are unable to maintain themselves, and hence they have filed the petition for maintenance before the trial Court, claiming maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to each of them, from the respondent. 3. The respondent-son has filed counter affidavit stating that there was a partition on 21.9.1995, whereby A schedule property has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been allotted to the first petitioner-father and B schedule property has been allotted to the respondent-son. The first petitioner-father sold his property on 15.2.2005, and he is doing financial business, and to harass the respondent-son, the petitioners-parents have come forward with the petition for maintenance. The respondent-son filed O.S.No.85 of 2007 before the District Munsif Court, Namakkal. The petitioners-parents are hale and healthy and they are not entitled to maintenance. 4. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, granted maintenance of Rs.1,500/- p.m. to each of the petitioners-parents, against which, the respondent-son preferred Criminal Revision Petition before the appellate Court, wherein, the maintenance of Rs.1,500/- p.m. has been reduced to Rs.750/- p.m., against which, the petitioners-parents have come forward with the present Crl.R.C. 5. It is stated that during the pendency of the present Crl.R.C., on 8.6.2009, the mother of the respondent-son compromised with her son and joined with him and an order was passed by the trial Court in C.M.P.No.812 of 2009 in C.M.P.No.1041 of 2008 and further, during the pendency of the Crl.R.C., the second petitioner-mother died. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners-parents submitted that the first petitioner-father is aged more than 80 years and he is unable to do work and maintain himself, and so, the amount of Rs.750/- p.m. is not sufficient to maintain himself and hence, he prayed for restoring the order of the trial Court. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-son stated that the impugned order of the revisional Court is fair and proper and it does not warrant any interference and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the present Crl.R.C. He further submitted that the respondent-son has to maintain his wife and family. 8. Considering the rival submissions made by both parties, admittedly, the first petitioner-father is more than 80 years and so, he is unable to do work and maintain himself. As per the version of the respondent-son, the second petitioner-mother died. The quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial Court is at Rs.1,500/- each p.m. and on the basis of the revision preferred by the respondent-son, the same had been reduced to Rs.750/- p.m. Considering the age of the first petitioner-father, being 80 years old, and as he was unable to maintain himself or do any work, to meet out his medical expenses and for food, shelter and clothing, and also considering the cost of living, the maintenance awarded by the revisional (appellate) Court, is not sufficient to the first petitioner-father, and the same is hereby enhanced to Rs.1,500/- p.m. as awarded by the trial Court. Furthermore, the revisional Court has not assigned any proper reason https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for reducing the amount of maintenance. 9. Hence, considering the cost of living and the age of the first petitioner-father and to meet out his medical expenses and other expenses for his assistance, and for food, clothing and shelter, I am of the view that Rs.1,500/- p.m. maintenance awarded by the trial Court is fair and proper. 10. Hence, the impugned order of the appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored. The first petitioner- father being aged more than 80 years, the respondent-son is directed to pay the arrears of maintenance from the date of maintenance petition before the trial Court, within two months from today and shall continue to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.1,500/- p.m. as awarded by the trial Court, on or before 5th of every English Calendar month. 11. With the above direction, the Crl.R.C. is allowed. The order of the appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar True Copy/- Sub Assistant Registrar cs To 1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal. 2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal. 3. The Section Officer, Crl. Section, High Court, Madras. +1 CC to Mr. P.SHivakumaran Advocate Sr 23102 +1 CC to MR.D. Vairamoorthy Advocate sr 23180 Crl.R.C.No.387 of 2009 JRG-CO KV- 20/04/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/