The revision petitioners herein are one of the sons, and the only daughter, of the first respondent who has obtained a maintenance order against them from the Family Court, Vadakara in M.C No. 100/2012. The mother has a son in the first marriage, but she did not opt to proceed against him. The revision petitioners and the second respondent are the children born in the second marriage. She was divorced by her husband years back, and as a divorced lady she has received a lumpsum amount under Section 3 (1) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, by way of maintenance during Iddah, and also provision for future sustenance. Still she made a claim against the children under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2. The revision petitioners resisted the claim on the contention that the mother has her own income, that she has other children from whom she can claim maintenance, and that they are not capable to pay as claimed by the mother.
3. The trial court conducted an enqiry in the proceedings, and recorded evidence. The mother examined herself as PW1 during the enquiry. The revision petitioners did not adduce any oral evidence but Exts. B1 to B13 were marked on their side. On an appreciation of the evidence the trial court found that the mother is entitled to get maintenance from two of the three children arraigned as respondents in the proceedings. Accordingly, these revision petitioners were directed to pay maintenance to the mother at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month, making them jointly and severally liable. The said order dated 30.12.2013 in M.C 100/12 is under challenge in this revision.
4. On hearing both sides and on a perusal of the case records I find the necessity of some reduction in the maintenance awarded by the trial court in this case. Admittedly the first respondent has received a lumpsum from her former husband under the provisions of the MW Act. What she received is admittedly maintenance during Iddah, and reasonable and fair provision. The purpose of making payment of reasonable and fair provision is to provide something to a divorced lady for her future sustenance. But it appears that she is not satisfied with the amount provided by the former husband, and she is now against the children born in the second wedlock. There is no reason or explanation why she did not opt to proceed against the other son, who is said to be employed abroad.
5. Of course children liable for maintenance to parents cannot be made jointly and severally liable. Maintenance liability is not such a liability to be discharged jointly and severally. The court will have to specify what amount each of the children will have to pay to the parents. In the particular facts and circumstances, I feel that the liability can be 50% + 50%.
6. As already stated the mother of the revision petitioners is not an abandoned lady. She has already received reasonably from her former husband, and that must be in her hands for her future sustenance. Admittedly she has other children from whom also she can make claim, directly or through court proceedings. In the above situation, the amount of maintenance granted by the trial court can be reasonably modified, and with this modification the revision can be allowed in part. I feel that each of the revision petitioners can pay at the rate of Rs.750/- per month to the mother. Of course, they have their on grievance that they were not looked after or cared by the mother when they were small children.
It is the unqualified privilege of a father or mother to claim maintenance from the children, and when such claim comes, the children cannot be heard to bargain on any ground, factual or sentimental. I feel that the revision petitioners can pay Rs.750/- per month each, and they cannot find any excuse not to pay that amount.
In the result this revision petition is allowed in part. Accordingly the amount of maintenance granted by the trial court as per the impugned order is reasonably reduced to Rs. 1,500/- per month, payable by the revision petitioners in equal proportion.
P.UBAID, JUDGE sab