IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 118 of 2009() -------------------------------- MC.143/2008 of OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/SECOND RESPONDENT ------------------------------ INDIRA SUBHASH, AGED 58 YEARS, D/O.RAJAMMA, SCHOEN VILLA, KEERUKUZHI ,THATTA. BY ADVS. MR. K.SHAJ MR.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/IST & 3RD RESPONDENT ------------------------- 1. RAJAMMA, AGED 79 YEARS, W/O.SREEDHARAN THIRUMANGALALTHU VEEDU,MURINJAKAL,KOODAL MURI, KOODAL VILLAGE. 2. SIVAKUMAR, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. SREEDHARAN KRISHNAKRIPA, MURINJAKAL,KOODAL MURI, KOODAL VILLAGE. 3. SAJIKUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. SREEDHARAN THIRUMANGALALTHU VEEDU, MURINJAKAL,KOODAL MURI, KOODAL VILLAGE. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.MA. NO.3238/2009 IN RPFC. NO.118/2009 DISMISSED 23/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 118 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Thiruvalla in M.C.143/08 whereby the Court ordered two sons and a daughter to pay a maintenance at the rate of Rs.700/- each to the mother as maintenance. Challenging the liability as well as the quantum the daughter has come up in revision. 2. Heard. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner strongly contend that the liability to pay maintenance cannot be cast on a married daughter dependent on her husband and so the order is liable to be set aside. The very question whether a married daughter shall be liable came up for consideration before a learned judge of this Court in the decision reported in Areefa Beevi v. Dr.K.M.Sahib 1982 KLT 242. The learned judge held that the expression 'his father or mother occurring in S.125 Cr.P.C. must be taken to have the meaning “her father or mother”. Under S.125 a R.P.(F.C.) NO. 118 OF 2009 -:2:- daughter also has the liability to maintain her parents who have no ostensible means of livelihood.” It has to be stated that a daughter though married is bound to maintain her indigent parents. The object of the proceedings for maintenance is to prevent vagrancy. The provisions relating to obligations to maintain are not penal in nature, but are intended for the enforcement of a social duty, a default of which may lead to destitution and vagrancy. It serves social purpose. Therefore, it will not be fair to exclude a well-to-do married daughter, who has an independent source of income, from carrying out this social obligation. That will be against all the cannons of justice, equity and good conscience. So with these principles in mind let me analyze the case. 3. The daughter would contend that the mother is having fixed deposit of Rs.25 lakhs. Except for the statement not even a scrap of paper is before the Family Court to establish her case. Further the daughter has not even attempted to mount the box to give evidence. Learned counsel would submit she is only a housewife depending on R.P.(F.C.) NO. 118 OF 2009 -:3:- the husband and therefore there is no obligation for the son- in-law to maintain the mother-in-law and so the daughter cannot be compelled to pay maintenance. It is a point. But in this case the mother has categorically asserted before Court that she and her husband had bequeathed the properties belonging to them in favour of all the children and thereby they had themselves deprived of their property and so they are finding it difficult to pull on. The learned counsel would contend at any rate the children are entitled to get the property and therefore it cannot be taken as a ground. Certainly it has to be taken as a ground for the reason that under ordinary circumstances if the parents die without executing any will then the natural heirs will get the property. Not only that if the property is to devolve upon the children only on the death then they will never be prevented from enjoying the usufructs of the property till their death. So source of income for them had been deprived of by giving it to the children and therefore the said children who have got assets from the parents are not only morally bound but also R.P.(F.C.) NO. 118 OF 2009 -:4:- legally bound to maintain their parents. It is true that the Court is not having any correct picture about the income derived from the assets of the daughter. Therefore taking into consideration that aspect I am inclined to reduce the maintenance from Rs.700/- to Rs.500/-. In the result R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of by modifying the order of maintenance to be paid by the daughter from Rs.700/- to Rs.500/- from the date of petition. I make it clear this Court is not interfering with the order of maintenance and the quantum granted against the sons. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-