IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP(Family Court) No. 16 of 2008()
1. NOUFAL.E., D/O.PAKKER, AGED 27,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. E.PAKKER, S/O.PAREEKKUTTY, AGED 60,
... Respondent
2. NASHIDA.E., D/O.PAKKER E, AGED 32,
3. RASHEEDA.E., D/O.PAKKER.E., AGED 29,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :30/01/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
R.P.(F.C.) No. 16 OF 2008
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008
O R D E R
This revision petition is directed against a direction
under section 125 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner to pay
maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month to the
claimant, his father. The relationship is admitted. That the
claimant father is a retired police official is also admitted.
That he gets a monthly pension of Rs.1,941/- is also admitted.
That he has a liability to pay an amount of Rs.500/- to his
wife, the Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner herein, is
also not disputed. The claimant father contended that he is
unable to maintain himself with the meagre pension that he
gets and that his child even having sufficient means must be
directed to pay maintenance to him. The claimant examined
himself as PW1 and proved Exts.A1 to A4. The petitioner,
who had entered appearance and conducted the case
R.P.F.C.No.16/08
: 2 :
through his Power of Attorney holder – his mother, did not
adduce any evidence. The learned Judge of the Family Court
came to the conclusion that the claimant is unable to maintain
himself and the petitioner having sufficient means has the
liability to pay maintenance to his father. The other children,
the sisters of the petitioner, who were only housewives, were
found to be having no sufficient means. Accordingly, a
direction was issued to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- per
month to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the
impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned
counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on two
specific grounds. He first of all contends that there is nothing
to show that the claimant is a person unable to maintain
himself. Secondly, the petitioner contends that there is
nothing to show that the petitioner herein is a person having
sufficient means. Thirdly, the petitioner contends that the
quantum of maintenance deserves to be reduced.
R.P.F.C.No.16/08
: 3 :
3. Admittedly, the claimant is receiving a monthly
pension of Rs.1,941/-. He is bound under law to pay Rs.500/-
per month to his wife. The question is whether the person
getting Rs.1,941/- by way of pension can be said to be a
person unable to maintain himself. He admittedly has the
liability to pay an amount of Rs.500/- to his wife. PW1 states
that he is unable to maintain himself. I do not find any reason
to come to a conclusion that the petitioner is a person unable
to maintain himself. To keep body and soul it is evident that
the amount of Rs.1,441/- may not be sufficient. Moreover, the
ability to maintain must be gauged and judged by the
standard of life which the parties are used to. The claimant is
a retired police official. The petitioner herein is a person who
is allegedly employed abroad. Taking all these circumstances
into account, I am unable to find any vice vitiating the
impugned finding that the claimant is a person unable to
maintain himself.
4. The next question is whether the petitioner is
R.P.F.C.No.16/08
: 4 :
having sufficient means. Admittedly, he is now abroad. He is
a person aged 27 years. He has a family of his own. The
court below did not commit any error warranting revisional
interference in taking the view that the petitioner is a person
having employment abroad and consequently sufficient
means. The said finding also does not warrant interference.
5. Finally, the prayer is only that the quantum of
maintenance may be reduced. In the facts and
circumstances, considering the needs of the claimant and the
means of the petitioner herein, I am not satisfied that the
quantum of maintenance fixed does deserve to be reduced
in revision.
6. It follows that the impugned order does not warrant
revisional interference. The challenge fails. This revision
petition is accordingly dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
aks