IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 436 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.62/2009 of Family Court , KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR. .................... REV.PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------- K.J. JOSE, S/O.K.C. JOSEPH, KANJIRAKKATTU HOUSE, VANDANPATHAL.P.O, MUNDAKKAYAM, KOTTAYAM NOW RESIDING AT MYTHRI TRUST, KOTTAPPADY, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.BANI RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------- THEJAS JOSE, S/O.K.J. JOSE, ENGINEER, KURUMBA TRUST, SHOBHA HERITAGE, PANNIYANKARA.P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 436 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor in M.C.62/09. The father has moved an application against the son claiming maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. According to the father he is not having any income and he is staying in an old age home whereas the son is an engineer with Shoba Developers is having a sizable salary. The Family Court declined to accept the case of the father and it is against that decision he has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides. A perusal of the documents available would reveal that the father is on one side and the mother and children are on the other side and they are fighting. All of them were in gulf countries and now the father would contend that he is not having any source of income and therefore he is liable to be maintained by the son. The son on the other hand would R.P.(F.C.) NO. 436 OF 2009 -:2:- contend that the father was a cruel person not only to him but to his mother also and he was deported from foreign country. Now the scope u/s 125 Cr.P.C. is that if a father is unable to maintain himself and if the son is in a position, then the son is bound to maintain. The other antecedents may not be of much significance in such types of cases. It has been contended by the son that the father is having three acres of land and other avocation. If he is able to establish the same then his liability may not be there for the reason that the father is able to maintain himself. The Family Court just on the averment in the counter statement and the non-denial of the same by the father had arrived at a decision. It does not appear to be correct for the reason that the father has stated that he had only 80 cents of land which he has sold away and to another question had answered he did not have any other land. So it is a matter which requires reconsideration. Therefore I set aside the order of the Family Court and remit the case back to the Family Court for fresh consideration after affording equal opportunities to both the sides to produce R.P.(F.C.) NO. 436 OF 2009 -:3:- documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 28.4.2010. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-