Counter petitioner in M.C.No.76/2013 on the file of the Family Court, Ottappalam, is the revision petitioner herein. The unfortunate mother, who is aged 80 years has been forced to come to a court of law, seeking maintenance from her son under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code').
2. It is alleged in the petition that, she has four daughters, who were married away and residing with their husbands and the revision petitioner is the only son. She has no means to maintain herself and suffering from illness as well. She had no independent income of her own. Revision petitioner is a PWD contractor and getting ₹50,000/- from his work. He is also doing real estate business. There is none to look after her. She requires ₹7,500/- per month for her maintenance. In spite of having capacity to maintain, he is not providing any maintenance to the respondent herein. So she filed the application.
3. Revision petitioner, who is the counter petitioner in the court below appeared and filed courter contending that, there is no bona fide on the part of the mother in filing the petition and this has been filed at the instigation of her younger daughter with whom now she is residing. The allegation was that he is not getting ₹50,000/- and he is a PWD contractor etc., is not correct.
He is an agriculturist and suffering from several diseases. He had married away his daughter 21/2 years ago, incurring huge liabilities. He had taken a loan for the agriculture purpose from State Bank of Travancore, Sreekrishnapuram branch, but he could not repay the same. So they have initiated recovery proceedings and he approached the District Collector and got instalment facility to clear the dues. He had also taken education loan for his son and he could not pay the same. So the major portion of the salary amount of his son was attached. So he is not having income to pay separate maintenance to the petitioner in the lower court. He had also contended that, the family property was partitioned, a portion of property and also ₹80,000/- was given to the respondent, but she had given the property to the daughter, who had sold the same for ₹7,00,000/- to 3rd party and that amount is with the petitioner and the daughter by name Padmini. So she is not entitled to get the maintenance and he prayed for dismissal of the application.
4. Respondent herein was examined as PW1 and revision petitioner was examined RW1 and Exts.D1 to D6 were marked on his side. After considering the evidence on record, court below found that, the respondent herein is unable to maintain herself and she has no independent income and the revision petitioner is liable to pay maintenance and fixed the maintenance at the rate of ₹2,000/- per month from the date of petition.
This order is being challenged by the revision petitioner.
5. Since the respondent had appeared through counsel in the delay condonation application and expressed his willingness to appear in the revision also, this court felt that, the revision can be admitted and disposed of on merit today itself. So the revision is admitted, heard and disposed of today itself
6. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, he is without any employment and he incurred huge liability for giving his daughter in marriage and also taking education loan for his son. Further when the family property was partitioned, a portion of the property was given to the respondent herein, but she had given the same to her younger daughter, with whom now she is residing and the younger daughter, Padmini had sold the same and that amount is with them now. So there is no necessity to pay any maintenance separately to the respondent herein. Further the amount awarded is excessive and harsh.
7. The counsel for the respondent submitted that, no interference is called for.
8. It is an admitted fact that revision petitioner is the only son of the respondent herein, who is aged 80 years. She has four daughters and they were given in marriage and living with their husbands. Being the son, he has the responsibility to maintain the mother at her old age. It is true that a property was given to the respondent herein when the family property were partitioned and she had gifted that property to her younger daughter. So at present, she is not having any property in her name. Further the document was executed in the year 2010 and it is also seen that, that property was sold by Padmini to the 3rd party in the year 2012. So it cannot be said that, she was having that money even now. She had filed this petition for maintenance after three years of execution of Ext.D1 document, in favour of her daughter. Further it is seen from the evidence of PW1 that she is suffering from old age diseases as well and she requires amount for treatment as well. There is no evidence to show that, there is independent income other than the income from their husband for the daughters to provide independent maintenance to the mother. The case of the revision petitioner was that, he is an agriculturist. That shows that, he is having landed property. Further it is also seen from his evidence and the documents produced that revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated for the loans taken by him for agricultural purpose, and he had agreed to repay the same on instalments. That also shows that, he is getting income from his agricultural properties. Further he had no case that he is totally disabled from doing any work also. The documents produced by him as Ext.D3 series are not sufficient to come to the conclusion that, he is totally disabled from doing any work and he has no such case also and he had no case that he is providing any independent maintenance to the mother after the family properties were partitioned. So under the circumstances, the court below was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the respondent herein is without any meanings to maintain herself and the revision petitioner is capable of doing work and earn money and provide maintenance to the mother which he is not doing and thereby he is liable to be pay maintenance.
9. Considering the cost of living and also the amount required for an aged woman, the amount of ₹2,000/- fixed by the court below as maintenance cannot be said to be excessive and the court below was perfectly justified in quantifying the maintenance amount as ₹2,000/-, directing the revision petitioner to pay the same to the petitioner from the date of petition and the order does not call for any interference, as the amount of maintenance awarded under the circumstances mentioned above cannot be said to be excessive. It does not require interference of this court using the revisional power. So the revision lacks bona fides and merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the revision is dismissed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the court below at the earliest.
Sd/-
K. Ramakrishnan, Judge // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss