THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.698 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 5 are said to be the children of respondent No.1. The latter filed M.C.No.23 of 2009 against the petitioner alone in the Family Court, Kadapa for maintenance. The petitioner filed a suit in the Family Court against the respondents herein for a declaration that respondent Nos.2 to 5 are jointly liable to pay the maintenance to respondent No.1 along with him. The Family Court returned the plaint taking objection as to the maintainability. The petitioner re-presented the same and ultimately through order, dated 30.01.2010, the Family Court returned the plaint for presentation in proper Court. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. Heard Sri S.D.Raghava Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short ‘the Act’), no doubt, confers power upon the Family Court to adjudicate all disputes in relation to maintenance, including the power to pass interim orders. In the suit, the petitioner did not claim maintenance for himself. It is for a declaration to the effect that respondents 2 to 5 are also under obligation to pay maintenance to respondent No.1. Therefore, it is clearly outside the scope and jurisdiction of the Family Court under Section 7 of the Act. It is not as if the petitioner is without any remedy. In case he alone is shown as respondent in M.C.No.23 of 2009, he can certainly file an application to implead his brothers and sisters and impress upon the Court that they too are under obligation to pay the maintenance. With the above observation, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:04.03.2010. kdl