IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 256 of 2009() ---------------------- MC.125/2009 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVN.PETITIONER/RESPONDENT :- ------------------------------------------------- ABDUL RAZACK,AGED 32 YEARS,S/O.MOIDEEN, KURIKKAL, KALIKAVU AMSOM, PULLANGODE, UDHIRAM POYIL P.O., KALIKAVU POLICE STATION LIMIT. BY ADV. MR.G.HARIHARAN RESPONDENT/PETITIONER :- ---------------------------------------- MANCHERY MOIDEEN KURIKKAL, 60 YEARS, S/O.UNNEEN KURIKKAL, MANCHERY HOUSE, KALIKAVU P.O., KALIKAVU AMSOM DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KALIKAVU POLICE STATION LIMIT. ADV. MR.A.C.SANKARA VARMA MR.MATHEW M.N. THIS REV.PETITION (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ---------------------- R.P(FC) No. 256 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March 2010 O R D E R This is a revision preferred by the son against the father to whom the Court below granted a maintenance of Rs.1200/- per month. Under ordinary circumstances it has to be held that it is the moral as well as legal duty of a son to maintain his father. I am not loosing sight of that principle but what are the circumstances in this case have to be really considered. Here is a father who had married 5 ladies and has 9 children born to them. The present petitioner and his mother were abandoned by the father when the revision petitioner was hardly 21/2 years old. Thereafter the father was in the process of getting married and he had transferred properties as well. Though a settlement deed was executed in favour of the revision petitioner herein that property was again transferred to another person and the son has to approach the Court for redressel of his grievance. When R.P.(FC) No.256 of 2009 -2- the Court granted a decree in favour of the son the father has come forward with a case for maintenance. This is the background of the case. It is very clear from the materials available here that the father had transferred properties having 3 Acres 451/4 cents for the year 2001 to his 3 minor children. He has also reserved the right to reside in the house and to takes usufructs till his death. Again he has transfered properties in favour of his other wives and children in 2001, transferes the properties in favour of a stranger and this is the nature of the father. When he was asked the question if he is not taking income from the property, his answer is that on account of physical inability he is not in a position to cultivate the property. The property is not cultivated by the person who owns the property but it is cultivated with the help of workers. 2. Therefore I feel this is eminently a fit case where the matter requires reconsideration by the Family Court. I direct the revision petitioner herein to move an application for the issuance of a Commission to find out the extend and nature of the property, the cultivable nature of the property and average income that should be derived from the property and findout R.P.(FC) No.256 of 2009 -3- whether there are income derivable from the properties and then decide the matter a fresh. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Family Court for consideration of the materials as discussed in previous paragraphs. Needless to say that both the parties are permitted to produce both the oral and documentary evidences in support of their respective contentions and then the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 29.4.2010. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Jvt