IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 343 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.30/2007 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ PETITIONER:- ------------------------------------------- V.P.MOOSA, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KHADER, RESIDING AT DARUL FALAH, POST THAIKADAPPURAM VIA, NEELESHWARAM, KASARGOD DIST. BY ADV. MR. K.M.MOHAMMED KUNHI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT & STATE:- --------------------------------------------- 1. THAYALEPURAYIL SHAFEEK, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. V.P. MOOSA, P.O. CHANGALAYI, VIA. SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT FOR R1 MR. K.N.ABHILASH FOR R1 BENNY VARGHESE, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.343 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred by a father who had lost the case of maintenance against the son. A reading of the order would reveal that this man had married at least thrice and children are born in the wedlocks and that one marriage had ended in divorce. The present respondent in the revision is the son born in the first wife. He has got a specific contention that the father feels that the case for maintenance filed by his mother is at his instance and therefore as a counter blast has moved this application for maintenance. One has to analyse the dictums in of Mohammadan’s law. The law never permits persons to go on marrying and it is only under exceptional circumstance that such marriages are permitted and there is always a condition precedent to that if one is going to marry another, one must make it sure to maintain the other also equally and importantly as that of the first one. Children are born in the first wife and four daughters are born in the second wife and he had given up the first marriage and when the first : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.343 OF 2008 wife moved for maintenance, he comes forward with a contention that he wanted maintenance from the son. Financial status of a person can be looked into in these type of cases. He had married thrice, children are born in the wedlocks and he disturbed some of them without looking after properly. So, in such circumstances as discussed by the family court unless one had the resources, he cannot go on marrying and therefore his contention that he is not in a position to maintain himself cannot be accepted. I do not find any illegality or perversity committed by the family court in arriving at a decision that the petition is not to be entertained. Therefore the revision lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.343 OF 2008