IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RPFC.No. 248 of 2006() ---------------------- MC.488/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/CR.PETITIONERS 1 TO 3: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABBAS, S/O. MOITHUPPA. 2. ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O. MOITHUPPA. 3. MUJEEB RAHIMAN, S/O. MOITHUPPA. ALL RESIDING AT PULAKKAL VEEDU, MUNNURKKODE POST, THRIKKADIRI, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.E.R.VENKATESWARAN SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS/4TH CR.PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------- 1. MOITHUPPA, S/O. KUNJEETHU. 2. KHADEEJA, W/O. MOITHUPPA. 3. SULAIMAN, S/O. MOITHUPPA. ALL RESIDING AT PULAKKAL VEEDU, MUNNURKKODE POST, THRIKKADIRI, OTTAPPALAM TALUK (CHERPULASSERY POLICE STATION LIMIT). ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R1 SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 248 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners are three of the four children of the respondent/claimant. They have suffered an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. obliging them to pay an amount of Rs.250/- each p.m. to the respondent/claimant – admittedly their father. Their father, the respondent herein had come to court with a claim for maintenance for himself and his wife. A contention was raised that the wife's signature is forged and she does not want to stake the claim for maintenance. Be that as it may, at later stages the respondent/father conceded that the claim need be considered as a claim only for himself. The counsel for the petitioners even now highlights the fact that the respondent/father had come to court with unclean hands staking a false and non-existent claim on behalf of their mother also. That dispute is irrelevant now as the impugned order is only for payment of maintenance to the respondent/claimant/father. R.P.F.C.No. 248 of 2006 2 2. Relationship is admitted. Separate residence is admitted. The petitioners contended that they are willing to maintain the father on condition that he lives with them. That is of course not a defence which is available to a respondent facing the claim for maintenance of his parent. That position is by now well settled. (See para 9 of the decision in Moly v. State of Kerala (2006 (4) KLT 123). 3. What then is the contest? There is a contention that the claimant/father is employed as a watchman and gets an income of Rs.5,000/- p.m. Not a scintilla of evidence was adduced in support of that contention, except the interested version of CPW1, which was denied by the father(PW1) on oath. The claimant is shown to be aged about 67 years. In the absence of better evidence, I find it easy to accept the evidence of the father that he is not employed now. He was conducting tender coconut business in Bombay earlier is the very contention of the petitioners. 4. It is then contended that the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive. Rs.250/- p.m. per child is the maintenance ordered for the claimant. By any stretch of imagination it cannot be held that the R.P.F.C.No. 248 of 2006 3 quantum of maintenance fixed is unreasonable or perverse as to justify the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 5. This revision petition is hence dismissed. Needless to say amounts if any in deposit shall forthwith be released to the claimant. (R. BASANT) Judge tm