IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2011 / 17TH ASHADHA 1933 RPFC.No. 157 of 2011() ---------------------------------- MC.282/2008 of FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------------- SIVADAS, S/O. LATE VAZHUR SAMBASIVAN, PALLIPRAM AMSOM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, REPRESNTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SREEJA SIVADAS, NAMBANATH HOUSE, AYYANTHOLE.P.O., THRISSUR-3. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ THANKAM, W/O.LATE VAZHUR SAMBASIVAN, RESIDING WITH VAZHUR RAMSINGH, PALLIPRAM AMSOM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK.PIN- 680 506. BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.157 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July 2011 ORDER Challenge in the revision is against the order passed by the Family Court, Thrissur, awarding interim maintenance to the respondent, who is the mother of the revision petitioner. Alleging neglect, and inability to maintain herself, she approached the Family Court, and proceeded against the revision petitioner, her son, seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that the petitioner disputing her claim contended that she is possessed of sufficient means, including landed properties as well. On his request, it is seen, an Advocate Commission was appointed. But the report received from such Commissioner, as reflected in the order, was not sufficient to substantiate his contentions raised as to the means of the petitioner mother. Having regard to the materials placed, the Judge, Family Court has passed the impugned order directing the revision petitioner, the son, to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month to the petitioner, mother. That order is under challenge. 2. The case has been foisted at the instance of his sisters only to vex and harass the petitioner is the submission of the counsel. It Crl.R.P No.157/2011 - 2 - is further submitted that the mother is possessed of sufficient means. At this stage, after going through the interim order of maintenance passed by the court, I find no infirmity or illegality in passing such order warranting interference. It is open to the petitioner to raise all defence available to him under law to resist the petition, if so advised. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented and also taking note of the submissions made by the counsel for an expeditious disposal of the case, I direct the Judge, Family Court to give the case top priority, and to dispose the same as expeditiously as possible. Revision is disposed as indicated above. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN vdv JUDGE //Ture Copy// P.A to Judge