IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2011 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RPFC.No. 212 of 2011 ------------------------------- [M.C.NO.252/2009 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM DTD. 28/03/2011] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------- UNNIKRISHNA MARAR, S/O.KRISHNA MARAR, 66 YEARS, SABARIGIRI HOUSE, TRIKKARIYUR KARA, TRIKKARIYUR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADVS. SRI.V.T.RAGHUNATH, SMT.C.V.RAJALAKSHMI. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. R.SREEDEVI, W/O.P.S.RAJAN, 39 YEARS, MAHILA PRADHAN AND LIC AGENT, PULIKKAL HOUSE, MEETHALAKKARA, ASAMANNUR VILLAGE, PERUMBAVUR. 2. R.PADMINI, W/O.BABURAJ, 37 YEARS, PHARMACIST TATA TEA GENERAL HOSPITAL, MUNNAR. 3. R.TULASI, W/O.SURESH, 33 YEARS, COMPUTER LAB ASSISTANT, M.A.COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOTHAMANGALAM. R1 TO R3 BY ADVS. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SRI.MANU GOVIND, SRI.V.H.NOUFALMON. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- R.P(F.C) No.212 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December 2011 ORDER The revision involves a claim by a 66 year old father, a State Government pensioner, for maintenance from his three married daughters, the respondents. After separation from his wife, with whom matrimonial proceedings are pending, on account of serious ailments suffered he requires the assistance of a home nurse and also a servant to look after him and attend to his needs, and his daughters, three of them, who are married and living separately with their respective spouse, have neglected to maintain him was the case alleged by the father to seek maintenance from them, all of them together, a sum of `.6,000/- under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code'). That claim was resisted by the daughters contending that after the separation of parents, the protection offered by them to the mother, who are looking after her, has caused ill will and animosity of the father towards them and therefore he has initiated the proceedings to vex and harass them. They are not possessed of sufficient means and, further, they have to look after their children also, was canvassed apart from contending that the father is possessed of sufficient means to maintain himself. On the R.P(F.C) No.212 OF 2011 2 materials placed, which consisted of the evidence of the petitioner/father, his witness and documentary materials produced by him, that alone, the court below found that on the fact situation presented he is not entitled to claim maintenance from his married daughters, and the claim was therefore turned down. Propriety, legality and correctness of that order is assailed in this revision. 2. Before proceeding any further with the challenges raised in the revision by the claimant/father, it is appropriate and, more so, necessary to consider the object behind Section 125 of the Code, which is primarily intended to avoid vagrancy and destitution. Otherwise than in the case of children, who are entitled to claim maintenance from the person who is statutorily bound to provide the same, in the case of wife and parents, the basis for their claim, should depend upon their inability for sustenance. When the claimant is the wife or one among the parents, to sustain a claim raised by such party under Section 125 of the Code, he or she must first of all show that he or she is unable to maintain himself or herself. When that is established, more so, only on establishment of such essential condition, further inquiry will arise whether there was neglect by the person from whom maintenance has been claimed and also whether he is statutorily bound to do so also. So, in the given facts of the case, R.P(F.C) No.212 OF 2011 3 the primary question that has to be looked into is whether the claimant/father is unable to maintain himself as and when he set up a claim for maintenance against his three married daughters. Admittedly, he retired from the State Government in the year 2000. He did not produce a scrap of paper before the court below as to what was the pension he was getting in recognition of the service rendered by him. The materials tendered in the case, more so, from the admissions of the father/claimant itself, it has come out that he is in occupation of a building situate in a property having 20 cents of land. What was the income, if any, he is getting from the property leave apart the rental value of that building, nothing was tendered before the court to show whether he required any more financial assistance from his married daughters. More than the above aspects it has also come out that he has let out an outhouse to a tenant, which, according to him, fetched a sum of `.1,000/- per month. Though he would state that the rent are in arrears from the tenant, no particulars of the same, not even a reference, are made as to the letting out of the building in his petition. When that be so, no credence could be given to the version presented by him as to nonreceipt of the rent. If that was the background involved showing the income potentiality of the claimant/father, his own witness examined as PW3, one of his R.P(F.C) No.212 OF 2011 4 supervisory officers, while he continued in service, would indicate that whatever commutation effected from his pension would be over after a span of 12 years from the date of his retirement. What was the amount deducted from his pension towards commutation with reference to the pension already fixed, and, after subsequent revisions what is the present pension he is collecting, are relevant materials which required to be produced before the court to determine the controversy, on the challenges raised by his daughters that he is fully capable of maintaining himself and the plea set up as to his inability cannot be accepted. This was a case where the claimant withheld from the court what are the means of income available to him when he sought for and pressed for a claim against his three married daughters. 3. Going through the orders passed by the court below, it is seen that telephone charges and other expenses which he has to meet are also canvassed for to seek and sustain the claim for maintenance from his children. No doubt, the court may consider the status of the parties in fixing the quantum of maintenance. However, the object of the Section being to provide maintenance, and not bonanza to lead a luxurious life, it is evident, there is much force in the contention raised by the daughters/respondents that the claim raised against them was R.P(F.C) No.212 OF 2011 5 on account of the ill will generated consequent to the separation of the spouses, with the married daughters taking care of their mother. I do not find any infirmity whatsoever in the order passed by the court below turning down the claim of the father in the facts and circumstances presented in the case. It is open to him to establish his right in appropriate forum if he is so entitled to, as the proceedings covered by Section 125 of the Code, which is summary in nature, will not deter him to agitate such claim before the competent forum. Revision dismissed. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge