IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 29 of 2006() --------------------- MC.112/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PATTAMBI .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MUSTHAPHA @ MUHAMMED MUSTHAPHA HAJI, S/O. KUNJHAYAMMU HAJI, NEDIYEDATHU VEEDU, KURUVATTOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, VALLAPPUZHA OTTAPALAM TALUK, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER KUNJHIMOHAMMED. BY ADVS. MR.C.A.CHACKO, SMT.C.M.CHARISMA, MR.N.A.SHAFEEK. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. FATHIMAKUTTY, D/O. UMMER, KODAKKATTU PARAMBIL VEEDU, PULASSERY AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. MUHAMMED MAJEED, AGED 9 YEARS, (MINOR). 3. MUHAMMED HAJMAL, AGED 7 YEARS (MINOR) (2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT). R1 TO R3 BY ADVS. MR.P.VIJAYA BHANU, MR.PRASUN.S. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.868/2006 IN RP(FC)NO.29/2006 DISMISSED 07/01/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 29 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of January, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi in M.C.112/03. The petition is filed by the mother as a guardian for maintenance of two children aged 7 years and 5 years. The Magistrate awarded them a sum of Rs.1,000/- each and permitted the mother to draw the amount on their behalf. 2. It is the case of the mother that in the wedlock two children were born and thereafter she was ill treated by the husband as well as the members of his family and she was also even beaten and later sent to her parental home. Neither the husband nor the members of the family had taken any care to look after them and hence the petition. 3. On the contra the husband would contend that the lady was leading a immoral life and she had some illicit affairs with one Sulaiman and she had left the matrimonial home abandoning the children and she has no care for the children R.P.(F.C.) NO. 29 OF 2006 -:2:- and it was the mother of the respondent who was looking after the children. 4. In the lower Court PW1 and CPW1 were examined. It can be seen that the petition is filed in the month of September 2003. The power of attorney holder of the respondent would depose before Court that the children were taken away from the custody of him in December 2004. The petition is filed as early as in 2003 and one cannot believe that a lady will be capable of taking the children at that point of time. Admittedly the children are studying in the school and when a question is put to the witness that whether they are not studying in a particular school he just denies it and does not give any answer regarding the school in which they were studying. His version is that an amount of Rs.1,000/- had been given so far as maintenance. It is very interesting to note that the evidence of CPW1 would characterize the respondent as a person with some mental abnormality. He would even gone to the extent of saying that ................. .............................................................................. This shows about the attitude of the father towards the children. Why should one be sitting in a room in gulf country R.P.(F.C.) NO. 29 OF 2006 -:3:- if one is not mentally well. The evidence of CPW1 is totally unreliable. Whatever it may be, the poor children are not responsible for any of these unfortunate incidents and are bound to be maintained by the father. Therefore I agree with the finding of the Court below that the children are bound to be maintained by the father. 5. So far as the quantum is concerned the father is residing and has been working in the gulf country for the last 25 years as spoken to by CPW1. Such a person can easily give Rs.1,000/- each as maintenance to the growing children as their expenses will increase by day by day as the age progresses. So on the question of quantum also I do not find any ground to interfere. Therefore the revision lacks merits and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-