IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 424 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.187/2007 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, KANHIKKOTTIL VEEDU, BOOTHANAM COLONY P.O., KURUMBALANGODE AMSOM DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM. 2. JAYAPRAKASH, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, KANHIKKOTTIL VEEDU, BOOTHANAM COLONY P.O., KURUMBALANGODE AMSOM DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.A.T.ANILKUMAR MR.P.DALBI EMMANUEL RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------ KANHIKKOTTIL KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O RAMAN KUTTY, BOOTHANAM COLONY P.O., KURUMBALANGODE AMSOM,DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. MR.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.10800/2007 IN RP(FC) NO.424/2007 DISMISSED 12/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.424 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred by the children against the father on grant of maintenance. The sons were directed to pay Rs.750/= each to the father and it is against that decision, the sons have come up in revision. 2. The court below considered the necessity of the children to took after their parents and ordered maintenance. Meanwhile, a situation has arisen where the wife of the said person moved an application for maintenance and the court below has passed an order in the light of a joint statement that the husband is willing to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/= to the wife. When there is a direction from the court below, the liability to pay maintenance to the wife by the husband, the court would have been convinced about the income of the person. So, it is one side of the picture. On the other side, we find the alleged destitution of the father and the court mandates the children to pay maintenance. Therefore better evidence is necessary to : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.424 OF 2007 properly resolve the dispute. 3. Therefore I am inclined to set aside the order and remit the case back to the family court for fresh consideration after affording equal opportunities to both sides to adduce both oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.424 OF 2007