High Court Kerala High Court

Paulose vs Rossy on 30 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Paulose vs Rossy on 30 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RPFC.No. 39 of 2010()


1. PAULOSE, S/O.OUSEPH,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ROSSY, W/O.OUSEPH,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.AYPE JOSEPH

                For Respondent  :SMT.P.A.ANITHA

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :30/03/2010

 O R D E R
                     M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
                    --------------------------
          Revision Petition (F C) No.39 of 2010
              ----------------------------------------
         Dated this the 30th day of March 2010


                           O R D E R

This revision is preferred against the order of the Family

Court, Ernakulam in M.C. 258/08. An 81 year old father and 77

year old mother had moved an application for maintenance

against their eldest son and the Family Court refused

maintenance to the father and granted maintenance at the rate

of Rs.1,000/- per month to the mother. The son is even

challenging that order of maintenance passed in favour of his

own mother. It is true that there is some point between the

father and the son for the reason that the father is having

properties according to him. But mother is a person who has to

either depend upon the husband or the son. That is why it is

stated that a lady under the old times was always a dependent.

When she is young, she is at the mercy of her parents, when she

R.P (FC) No.39 of 2010

-2-

becomes a wife, she becomes a person dependent on her

husband, when husband also leaves the world, she has to depend

the children and thus the right of a women in an Indian society

had been always in this fashion. The son owes everything to his

mother for his birth and it is the duty of the son to realise that

the mother had suffered a lot not only when he was in her womb

but subsequently also to bring him up in the family. So it is

really a duty which is attached to a son to look after his mother

and it is very unfortunate that now such mothers have to

approach Court of law for getting maintenance for their lively

hood. The mother is not a person with much income. The

mother, it is submitted, is having some ailment and therefore,

she requires medical expenses as well. Therefore, taking into

consideration the fact that the mother has also to pull on and

even if the other children are prepared to give something, the

son cannot get rid of his responsibility to look after his mother.

Therefore, the order of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per

month granted by the Family Court cannot be faulted with. I

decline to interfere with the order but I make it clear that the

Court will have independent consideration regarding the father’s

R.P (FC) No.39 of 2010

-3-

claim against which also I am told a revision is filed.

The revision petition is dismissed accordingly.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE

Jvt