IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 79 of 2006() ----------------------------------- MC.48/2005 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. .................... REVISION PETITIONERS:2ND & 3RD COUNTER PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BALAKRISHNAN, PULIMOOTTIL VEEDU, CHANDANAPPALLY, ANGADIKKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR. 2. RAMA RAJAN, POIKAYIL VEEDU, UDAYAN KAVU, EDATHITTA, KODUMAN VILLAGE, ADOOR. BY ADVS. MR.M.NARENDRA KUMAR, SMT.LEENA KRISHNAN. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND 1ST COUNTER PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SARASWATHIAMMAL, AGED 85 YEARS, PULIMOOTTIL VEEDU, CHANDANAPPALLY, ANGADICKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR. 2. P.K. KARUPPASWAMY, KYNATHARAYIL VEEDU, COLLEGE JUNCTION, KOZHENCHERRY. BY ADV. MR.P.HARIDAS THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 8/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.3191/06 IN RP(FC) NO.79/2006 DISMISSED 08/01/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 79 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Thiruvalla in M.C.48/05. This case represents the misery of an old lady after the death of her husband when three well placed sons do not bother to look after her state of affairs. The moral value of this great nation is getting degraded on account of the neglect of the sons who are expected to be affectionate and dutiful to their mother who had given birth to them. I do not want to elaborate more on the point. 2. The petitioner before the court below is a mother aged 85 years. She is residing in a house wherein the two counter petitioners therein also resides but does not bother to look after the mother. It is averred that the first petitioner therein is a retired pensioner, the 2nd counter petitioner a vegetable merchant and the third counter petitioner a grocery R.P.(F.C.) NO. 79 OF 2006 -:2:- merchant. But the mother is depending upon somebody else for her day to day existence. The children though got notices from the court only the 2nd counter petitioner appeared but he also did not bother to contest the case and so there was only the evidence of the petitioner in the maintenance case which was taken note of by the Court below and had ordered Rs.1,000/- each to be paid by the counter petitioners. 3. Now the learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted before me that the first revision petitioner who is the 2nd counter petitioner before the Court below is laid up with paralysis and the defence furnished by the third counter petitioner is that his financial position is not very strong and so prays for indulgence of this Court. The first son has not bothered to appear before this Court nor before the Court below and the Court below did not have the full picture as there was only evidence of the petitioner in the M.C. Taking note of the circumstances mentioned and after hearing the argument for the learned counsel for the revision petitioner I feel modification can be done by directing the first counter R.P.(F.C.) NO. 79 OF 2006 -:3:- petitioner in the M.C. to pay Rs.1,000/- and Rs.750/- each by counter petitioners 2 and 3 in the M.C. who are the revision petitioner before this Court. In the result the R.P.(FC) is disposed of by modifying the amount to be paid as follows. The first counter petitioner in the M.C. is directed to pay Rs.1000/- and counter petitioners 2 and 3 are directed to pay at the rate of Rs.750/- each and the said payment shall take effect from the date of petition filed before the Court below. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-