MOHAMMEDKUNHI Vs. SAFURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mary Joseph, J.:" The revision on hand is filed against an order passed by Family Court, Kasaragod on 24.06.2019 in M.C. No. 23 of 2016. M.C. was filed by the respondents before the Family Court under Section 127 (1) of Cr.P.C. seeking for enhancement of the sum ordered originally by the Family Court as monthly maintenance in M.C. No. 5 of 2005. In M.C. No. 5 of 2005 the Family Court has fixed Rs. 1,000/- per month as monthly maintenance payable to the 2 respondent from 19.12.2002 onwards and declined the claim of the 1 respondent for monthly maintenance. Therefore, revision was filed by the 1 respondent as R.P.(FC) No. 293 of 2007 before this Court and this Court has modified the order by awarding Rs. 1,000/- also as monthly maintenance payable to herself. M.C. No. 23 of 2016 was filed by the respondents under Section 127 (1) Cr.P.C. seeking for modification of the maintenance amount stands awarded by the Family Court in the original M.C. Though maintenance stands ordered at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- to each of the respondents, the revision petitioner defaulted payment after sometime.

(2.) In the counter statement filed in the M.C., the contention mainly taken by the revision petitioner was that he was physically handicapped in view of amputation of his right leg after meeting with an accident and that the eldest children being employed and financially affluent are maintaining the respondents. According to him, he is devoid of any means of livelihood and therefore, is not liable to pay maintenance to the respondents. The parties to the revision on hand will be referred to hereinafter as the respondent and petitioners in accordance with their status in the M.C., for clarity.

(3.) It was proved before the Family Court by the petitioners that the respondent is remarried. The contention taken by the respondent that he does not have means and therefore is not liable to pay maintenance to the petitioners, cannot be accepted for the sole reason that he got married secondly and begotten children in that wedlock. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent is now maintained by the son of the second wife born in her first marriage with another man is unbelievable for want of any evidence to establish the latter's employment, financial capacity and residence together. Through Exts.P11 to P16 it is well established that the 1 petitioner is suffering from cancer and is undergoing treatment for that.