Animadverting upon the judgment dated 28.02.2007, passed by the II Additional Family Court, Chennai in M.C.No.356 of 2005, this criminal revision is focussed.
2. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:
(a) The respondents herein filed M.C.No.356 of 2005 under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. as against the revision petitioner herein claiming maintenance.
(b) Inasmuch as the revision petitioner resisted the claim, whereupon enquiry was conducted. During enquiry on the side of the respondents herein, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 and P2 were marked. On the side of the revision petitioner, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.D1 was marked.
(c) Ultimately the Family Court Judge dismissed the claim of R2 herein who happened to be the brother of the revision petitioner, but awarded maintenance in favour of R1 herein being the father of the revision petitioner, directing the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,250/- per month.
3. Animadverting upon such awarding of maintenance, this revision has been focussed on various grounds, the gist and kernel of them would run thus:
The Family Court failed to take into account the fact that the revision petitioner with his meagre monthly income of Rs.6,000/- should meet his own requirements such as paying monthly rent to the mechanic shop which he is running and he has to maintain his wife. It is an admitted fact that R1 is owning a house of his own, wherein, the revision petitioner is not residing and he has got three other sons from whom he is not claiming maintenance. For the reasons best known to him he is not claiming any maintenance from them, and the fact remains that they are staying with him in the same house. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the order of the Family Court.
4. Despite printing the name of the learned counsel for the respondents, none appeared.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner who would reiterate the grounds of revision and submit that whatever might be the circumstance, the compensation awarded is on the higher side.
6. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or non-application of law in awarding maintenance in favour of the first respondent, payable by the revision petitioner.
7. A plain poring over and reading of the order of the Family Court would exemplify and demonstrate, display and disclose that the relationship between the parties is an admitted one. The first respondent has got four sons and except the revision petitioner who happened to be the second son of the first respondent, others are staying with him in his own house. The revision petitioner is running a two wheeler mechanic shop and according to him, earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month and also having the responsibility of maintaining his wife and paying rent to the premises. The contention of the revision petitioner is that when there are other three sons, why the father should pick and choose the revision petitioner for such harsh treatment of compelling him to pay maintenance. The Family Court appositely and correctly took into account the fact that all the sons are liable to maintain the father and correctly apportioned the liability and fixed only almost 1/4th liability on the revision petitioner.
8. At this juncture, I would like to point out that there is some slight mistake in the approach of the Family Court. Among the sons of the first respondent, the fourth son, the then minor petitioner was also one of the petitioners in M.C.No.356 of 2005 claiming maintenance as against his brother. But the Family Court correctly dismissed it and in such a case, the Court cannot visualise that a person who just crossed minority should pay maintenance to his father when the father has three other sons. As such, the apportionment should be among the three sons only. In such a case, the question arises as to what would be the requirement of the father. He is 73 years, i.e. Septuagenarian who would not be able to work by toiling and moiling like anything. Hence in such a case, maintenance should be for his food, clothing, medical and travel expenses and regarding shelter is concerned, he is occupying his own house. As such, per day, approximately he would not be able to lead a reasonably comfortable life without even having a sum of Rs.90/- to Rs.100/- per day in the present day cost of living. Accordingly if viewed, it would come to around Rs.2,700/- to Rs.3,000/- per month. Taking the least as his requirement in a sum of Rs.2,700/- per month, if the liability of revision petitioner is assessed, one third would come to Rs.900/- per month. Accordingly, the revision petitioner should pay atleast a sum of Rs.900/- per month to his father, leaving the remaining to be made good by his other brothers.
9. In this view of the matter, the revision is partly allowed reducing the monthly maintenance of Rs.1,250/- awarded by the Family Court to Rs.900/- per month payable by the first petitioner from the date of the M.C. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.