IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 RPFC.No. 288 of 2008() ------------------------------------ CRL.MC. 120/2003 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------- RAMANKUTTY, 67 YEARS, S/O.MOUKATHODIYIL KUNJUNNY, EZHUTHACHAN, KILLIMANGALAM DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. MR.K.J.SAJI ISAAC DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- SUBASH, S/O.MOUKATHODIYIL RAMANKUTTY KILLIMANGALAM VILLAGE, KILLIMANGALAM DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. NOW R/AT. C/O.KUNDUKATTIL VELU EZHUTHACHAN, PO.KILLIMANGALAM, KILLIMANGALAM DESOM. R1 BY ADVS.MR.C.HARIKUMAR MR.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.288 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Trichur in Crl.M.C.No.120/2003. The father whose maintenance case was dismissed as M.C.No.266/1994 had moved an application for maintenance against the son. The court below on a consideration of the materials dismissed the petition. It is against that decision, the revision is preferred. 2. I did not have the assistance of the counsel for the revision petitioner but the counsel for the respondent was available. In order to satisfy my conscience, I had perused the materials available in the record and I also perused previous orders passed in M.C.No.266/1994 as well as in O.P.No.87/2003. The father it is alleged had neglected the wife and children and he is living separately whereas the father would attribute that the mother is unjust and the children are not looking after him. 3. A perusal of the earlier order in M.C.No.226/1994 : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.288 OF 2008 would reveal that the very same father had filed a maintenance case against his two sons of whom one is no more and a perusal of the judgment of that case would reveal that the father is having 26 cents of dry land and 42 cents of double crop paddy land. The court in that case held that “it is a clear misuse of the provisions of Section 126 of the Cr.P.C and my finding on the above point therefore is that the petitioner is able to maintain himself”. This father had instituted a suit against the wife and children in the form of injunction. Thereafter, after the death of the first counter petitioner, Somanath,the father moved an application in 2003 to get maintenance from the wife and children of the deceased son. The family court found that the daughter-in-law and the grant children are not legally bound to maintain him and therefore dismissed the application. It could be seen that the father had not spared even the daughter-in-law and the grand children. When a petition for maintenance is dismissed, unless there are change of circumstances one cannot entertain another maintenance application. It can be seen from the averment : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.288 OF 2008 that the change of circumstances are that he has become old and weak but he admits that he has got landed properties but he would contend that he is not cultivating the same. The conduct of the father is not good towards the children for the last three decades. I do not find any change of circumstance by which the maintenance can be awarded to the father at this stage. Therefore the revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.288 OF 2008