A consensus maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Alappuzha is under challenge in this revision. The person, who claim maintenance, is none other than the aged father of the revision petitioner. At the age of 70, the father had to claim maintenance through court, from the son, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. What he sought is only ₹ 2000/- per month. 2. The revision petitioner entered appearance in the trial court and raised objections. Though he made an attempt to implead the other children, it was not allowed by the trial court. Of course, it is the right and privilege of the father to claim maintenance and to choose or decide from who among the children he should claim maintenance. Anyway, when the matter came up for trial, the revision petitioner consented for an order granting maintenance at the rate of ₹ 1,000/- per month. The learned Trial Judge recorded the consent and passed the alleged order dated R.P(FC) No.102 of 2014 2 6.1.2010 in M.C 149 of 2008.
3. On hearing both sides and on a perusal of the case records, I find no merit in this revision. What is granted as maintenance to the aged father is only ₹ 1,000/- per month. No sane and healthy son is expected to complain that he cannot maintain his father, or pay ₹ 1,000/- per month. May be that, he has his own responsibilities or that he has his own family to look after. That is not at all an excuse when the father claims maintenance. May be, that the father has other children from whom he can claim maintenance. That also, is not the concern of the court when maintenance is claimed by the aged father. I find that the revision petitioner has no excuse or ground to challenge the maintenance order obtained by his father against him at the age of 70 years. This revision petition is liable to be dismissed as meritless.
In the result, this revision petition is dismissed as meritless.
SD/- P.UBAID JUDGE ma / True copy/ P.S to Judge