IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 RPFC.No. 191 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.182/2000 of OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------- ANTONY, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.POOVATHINKAL PORINCHU, 5/251 VILVATTOM PANCHAYATH, PERINGAV P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. FRANCIS, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.POOVATHINGAL ANTHONY VILLADAM, P.O. RAMAVARMAPURAM, THRISSUR-680 631. 2. JOY, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.POOVATHINGAL ANTHONY, MANA LANE, KUTTUMUCK, P.O.RAMAVARMAPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. BABY ANTONY, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.POOVANTHINGAL ANTONY, EVANOOR DESOM, P.O.CHEROOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. JOBY, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.POOVATHINGAL ANTHONY, EVANOOR DESOM, P.O.CHEROOR, THRISSUR DIST. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No.191 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009. ORDER The father, petitioner before me claimed maintenance from his sons alleging neglect and refusal to maintain him. Sons contested the application on several grounds including that the father has sufficient means. Court below was not impressed by the contention of petitioner that he has no sufficient means and dismissed the application. Hence this revision. Learned counsel contends that finding of the court below is not correct. Petitioner is aged about 74 years and is unable to maintain himself. 2. This case unravels a long history of family feud with petitioner on the one side and his wife and children, on the other side. Petitioner’s marriage was in the year 1962 and until 1992 the family lived together peacefully. During that time, petitioner was working in the Express Malayalam Daily. In 1992 dispute started resulting in litigations between petitioner and his wife. Petitioner filed O.S.No.607 of 1992 seeking eviction of his wife from his property. That resulted in a compromise. But the compromise was that the wife should live separately from the petitioner. She had to go out of the house. She then filed O.S.No.119 of 1994 seeking maintenance from petitioner. Petitioner responded by filing O.P.No.94 of 1995 seeking judicial separation. Those cases were disposed of on 31.3.1995. Petitioner’s prayer for judicial separation was RP(FC) No.191/2009 2 rejected. Claim of wife for maintenance was allowed. She started executing the decree in her favour. Later she filed O.P.No.367 of 1996 claiming that she also has a right of residence in the house belonging to the petitioner. She sought for cancellation of three sale deeds executed by petitioner during 1996-97. Petitioner filed O.P.No.902 of 2003 in the Family Court seeking a divorce from his wife. She, in turn filed M.C.No.385 of 2005 claiming maintenance from the petitioner. Then it was the turn of the petitioner who thought that he should get maintenance from his children and filed M.C.No.182 of 2006. Evidence was recorded. Court below observed that petitioner has sufficient means and disallowed the prayer. Evidence disclosed that petitioner who retired from Express Malayalam Daily in the year, 1996 is getting retirement benefits. It is revealed that he has already transferred several items of property belonging to him as per three sale deeds during 1996-97 at a time when the parties were in the thick of litigations. It is also revealed that he has lent money to different persons and has filed several cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The further fact revealed from the evidence is that petitioner is maintaining a bank account. The extract of bank account is produced in M.C.No.385 of 2005 (where the wife claimed maintenance from the petitioner) as Ext.A8. Thus, evidence revealed that petitioner is able to maintain himself and has sufficient means. Court below has rightly observed that the application RP(FC) No.191/2009 3 claiming maintenance from the sons is only a counter blast for the claim made by the wife, be it for maintenance or, be it claiming right of residence . I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks