IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2011 / 26TH ASWINA 1933 RPFC.No. 203 of 2011() ---------------------------------- MC.NO.86/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------------- HARIDASAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.BHAVANI AMMA, THEKKE VELUTHEDATH HOUSE, KARUKAPTHUR DESOM, CHAZHIYATTIRI AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, (NOW RESIDING AT DEVAKI RAGHAVALAYAM NEAR NARASIMHA MOORTHI AMBALAM, KARUKAPUTHUR, CHAZHIYATTIRI.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.M.PREMCHAND RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETIIONER/STATE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. BHAVANI AMMA,AGED 59 YEARS, D/O.THEKKE VELUTHEDATH AMMINI @ PARU AMMA, CHAZIYATTIRI, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- R.P (F.C) No.203 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of October 2011 ORDER Revision is by the respondent in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, 'the Code'. Revision petitioner is the son of the claimant in the above proceedings. The claimant mother alleging neglect and inability to maintain herself claimed maintenance against the revision petitioner, her son, in the aforesaid proceedings. Her claim was initially dismissed by the learned Judge, Family Court, accepting the contentions raised by the son that she is possessed of sufficient means for her sustenance of life. That order was challenged by her filing a revision before this court. This court, setting aside the dismissal order, directed the Family Court to examine the matter afresh after affording both parties further opportunity to lead oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective case. Pursuant to such remission, the court below, on the basis of the materials tendered, has awarded a sum of Rs.300/- per month to the claimant, the mother of the revision petitioner. Propriety, legality and correctness of that order is impeached in this revision. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset would submit he has no challenge against the quantum of maintenance awarded, but, only that the entire proceedings had been initiated R.P(F.C) No.203 OF 2011 2 against him at the instance of his sister and his brother-in-law who were instrumental in throwing him out of his tharavad house. The revision petitioner, the son, it is submitted by the counsel, has already filed a suit for partition and it is pending for adjudication before the competent civil court. By filing this revision, what he intends is only a chance for having a reunion with his mother, giving a quietus to the whole controversy, according to the counsel. Though I do not doubt the merits of the submissions made by the counsel, looking into the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court and taking note that the proceedings for the claim of maintenance by the mother, which commenced nearly five years ago, I am unable to accept the submission made by the counsel to accede to the request for a chance to have a compromise of the whole controversy. The materials tendered in the case would show that the claimant mother is having some means for livelihood but that it was insufficient to meet all her necessities of life. She is having an income of `.1,200/- per month taking into account the widow pension, the profits that she could gather by selling milk, rearing cattle etc. Still, the learned Judge, Family Court found that the claim made by her for `.1,500/- for maintenance is just and reasonable as such sum is required for her livelihood. Taking into account that she is possessed of means to get `.1,200/-, the son as against whom the claim has been made was R.P(F.C) No.203 OF 2011 3 directed to pay only a sum of `.300/- per month. 3. A son is bound to maintain his progenitress, his mother. Unfortunately, in the present case the fight between the son and the mother has been going on unabated over the issue, as to whether the mother is possessed of sufficient means for livelihood. It is seen from the order of the court below that the son has examined nearly five witnesses and also tendered documentary evidence to resist stoutly the claim made by the mother. Revision filed by him, even challenging the awarding of `.300/-, that alone was granted by the Family Court, does not indicate that there is any merit in the request made for a reunion or compromise with his mother over the controversy. I do not find any merit in the revision and it is dismissed. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge