IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 RPFC.No. 110 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.476/2007 of Family Court, Malappuram .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- JOSEPH SKKARIYA, 38 YEARS, S/O.M.S.SAKKARIYA, MUNDANATTU HOUSE, OALACHODU.P.O., KOLATHUR VIA., CHIRATTAMALA MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & STATE --------------------------------- 1. M.S.SKKARIYA, 85 YEARS, S/O.SKKARIYA., MUNGANATTU HOUSE, PALACHODU PO.,KOLATHUR VIA. CHIRATAMALA, MALAPPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.110 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October 2008 O R D E R The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per mensum to the first claimant, admittedly his father. Both parents had staked their claims for maintenance; but the mother aged 79 years expired during the pendency of the proceedings. The father/claimant continues though aged 85 years on the date of the petition. Status as father and son is admitted. That the father had assigned an item of property to the petitioner is not disputed, though it is contended by him that he has only received one share in the family property like other children on settlement. Though the father contended that the entire property has been assigned to the petitioner, the petitioner did not produce the document of assignment/settlement. The petitioner raised a contention that his father has altogether five children - one daughter and four sons in all and that the claimant father can look up to his siblings also for support and maintenance. The claimant father contended that he having assigned all his property to the petitioner herein, he wants to stake the claim only against the R.P.F.C.No.110/2008 2 petitioner now. 2. Virtually, the dispute is only one regarding quantum of maintenance awarded. An amount of Rs.1,200/- per mensum has been awarded. The father is aged 85 years. The petitioner is a rubber tapper. There is a contention that after his work as a rubber tapper, he engages himself in other income earning activities also. He has landed property also admittedly. 3. The learned Judge of the Family Court, in these circumstances, had directed payment of an amount of Rs.1,200/- per mens um to the claimant. In any view of the matter, I am unable to agree that the quantum of maintenance fixed is excessive or that it leads to miscarriage of justice as to justify invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. Going by the indications available about the needs of the aged father and means of the petitioner, I am satisfied that the quantum of maintenance awarded does not warrant revisional interference. 4. This R.P.F.C is in these circumstances dismissed. The amounts in deposit shall forthwith be released to the claimant. Every effort shall be made by the learned Judge of the Family Court to ensure execution of the impugned order considering the advanced age of the claimant. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) R.P.F.C.No.110/2008 3 jsr R.P.F.C.No.110/2008 4 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008