THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2808 of 2010 ORDER: This case presents very unfortunate state of affairs, which a family is facing. The 1st petitioner is the wife and the 2nd petitioner is the minor child of one Jadala Ramachandram, son of the 1st respondent and brother of the 2nd respondent. Ramachandram met with an accident and became seriously ill, so much so that he has gone into Coma at the relevant point of time. It is stated that the 1st petitioner was carrying and the 2nd petitioner was born thereafter. There existed an insurance policy, which yields monthly income of Rs.16,667/- in favour of Ramachandram. Respondents 1 and 2, mother and brother of Ramchandram, arranged for prolonged treatment, which costed them huge money. It is now stated that he needs constant treatment in the form of physiotherapy, administration of medicines etc. Respondents 1 and 2 filed G.O.P.No.72 of 2010 before the Family Court, Warangal, with a prayer to declare them as his guardians. The petitioners were made as respondents. In that O.P., respondents 1 and 2 herein filed I.A.No.41 of 2010 under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. with a prayer to grant temporary injunction directing the L.I.C., 3rd respondent herein to release monthly instalments of Rs.16,667/- along with other benefits in their favour. The application was opposed by the petitioners. Through its order dated 17.06.2010, the trial Court allowed the petition. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. This is one of the strange cases, where a woman, who is about 70 years old, wants herself to be declared as guardian of her son, who is not only married but also had a son for himself. The only circumstance, under which such a prayer was made, is that her son has met with a major accident leading to his serious impairment of health. Whether or not the prayer of respondents 1 and 2 herein can be acceded to is a matter to be decided in the O.P. Respondents 1 and 2 wanted to claim the monthly income derived out of a policy in favour of Ramchandram for his treatment. After hearing both the parties, this Court found that apart from monthly income from the L.I.C., the family is possessed of substantial immovable properties, which yield fairly good amount of income. Though the treatment to the ailing person is a matter of utmost importance, the welfare of his wife and his child cannot be neglected. As of now, the petitioners are living separately and they do not have any independent income. The monthly income that is yielded from the policy is sought to be appropriated for the medical expenditure in its entirety. Such a course would be totally imbalanced and unjustified. This Court is of the view that the monthly income can be distributed equally between the petitioners on the one hand and for the treatment of Ramchandram on the other. Therefore, the civil revision petition is partly allowed directing that the monthly income derived out of policy with the 3rd respondent shall be paid in equal instalments to the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 03.08.2010 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2808 of 2010 Date: 03.08.2010 JSU