The revision petitioner herein is aggrieved by the maintenance order obtained by his father from the Family Court, Malappuram in M.C No.812/09. His mother was married by him years back, in 1983, but when the revision petitioner and his sister were minors, they and their mother were abandoned by the father. In such a situation they had to file petition for maintenance against the father under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In 1991, the father married another lady, and now he is with the said second wife and the children. When the revision petitioner attained majority, the father thought of making a claim against his son. Accordingly in 2009 he brought a claim against the son born in the first wedlock, for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2. The revision petitioner entered appearance in the trail court and resisted the claim of the father on the ground that he is able to maintain himself, the father has his own source of income, that the father has properties and income there from, and the father has been well maintaining his second wife and children.
3. The trial court conducted enquiry in the proceedings and recorded evidence. The father examined himself as PW1 and the revision petitioner examined himself as RW1. The father marked Exts. P1 and P2 during trial, and the son marked Ext. D1 to D5. On an appreciation of the evidence the trail court found that the son has sufficient means to maintain his father. Accordingly, the trial court directed the revision petitioner to pay maintenance to the father at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month by order dated 19.1.2010 in M.C 812/2009. The said order is under challenge in this revision brought by the son.
4. On hearing both sides and on a perusal of the case records I find that there is absolutely no satisfactory material to show that the father is unable to maintain himself. The only material on which he relies is the Ext. P1 prescription, which will not in any manner prove that the father has any disabling ailment or disease. He was aged only 50 years when he brought the claim in 2009. I fail to understand how the trial court found that the father is entitled to claim maintenance. It is undisputable that the revision petitioner herein, his sister and his mother were abandoned by the father years back, and after sometime the father married another lady. In that situation the revision petitioner and his mother had to approach the court for maintenance. It is undisputable that the second wife and the children born in the said wedlock are being properly maintained by the father. Of course, the children must be now aged more than 20 years. Any way his age was only 50 years when he brought claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. This is not a case where an old father or debilitated father or disabled father claims maintenance from the son. It has come out in evidence that the revision petitioner is only a part time menial, who does not have any permanent job or income. Of course it doesn't matter whether the son has any permanent job or income. When an aged or disabled father claims maintenance the courts concern is only whether the father is unable to maintain himself, and the court need not enquire whether the son has job or means. When an aged father, unable to maintain himself, claims maintenance from the son, the court will definitely direct the son to pay maintenance. But here he is a father aged only 50 years when he made claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C, and he brought the said claim when he was alright, mentally and physically. There is absolutely no material to show that he is disabled in any manner from earning for his livelihood. He has no explanation how he is able to maintain his second wife and children. Much enquiry or thought is not required to find that the father has his own source of income with which he could properly maintain his second wife and children. Such a father is now against the son born in the first wedlock, with the help of a prescription, prescribing some ayurvedic preparations like 'lohasavam', 'balarishtam' and 'amrtharishtam' claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Such a father does not deserve any consideration under the law. I find that the father brought this claim only because the revision petitioner and his mother had earlier brought a claim against him under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
5. In a case like this the courts concern is whether the claimant is unable to maintain himself. Sentimental concerns cannot influence the decision making process. A healthy father who has no ailment or disease, and who can well earn for his liability, cannot come under Section 125 Cr.P.C. I find that maintenance was wrongly awarded by the trial court in this case. I find that the said order is liable to set aside.
In the result this revision petition is allowed, and the impugned order of the trial court is set aside.
P.UBAID, JUDGE sab