SULAIMAN Vs. SHAREENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions are filed by the same petitioner against two different orders passed by the Family Court, Palakkad viz; in M.C.Nos. 121/10 and 133/10, filed respectively against his wife and daughters. As the facts involved in these cases are intrinsically intertwined and the petitioner in both the cases are one and the same person the cases are heard simultaneously and are being disposed of by this common order. In the former M.C. the petitioner claimed maintenance from his daughters. In the latter M.C. he sought for cancellation of the order passed by the Family Court, Palakkad in M.C.No. 848 of 2006 under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The revision petitioner filed M.C.No. 121/10 contending that he is aged sixty years and has been suffering from various physical ailments. Huge amounts are required for his treatment and he is not in a position to do any kind of work to earn for his livelihood and treatment, it was contended. The marriage between the revision petitioner and the respondent in R.P.(F.C.) No.170 of 2012 was conducted on 05 -5 -1985. Counter petitioners therein are his daughters born through the respondent in the latter revision petition. The revision petitioner's wife is residing with the children. It is the case of the revision petitioner that on account of physical ailment he is not able to maintain himself and at the same time his daughters are getting huge sum as salaries and as such are capable to maintain their parents viz. the revision petitioner and the respondent in the latter revision petition. He claimed Rs.2000/ - towards monthly maintenance from them. Earlier as per order dated 5 -10 -2007 in M.C.No.848 of 2006 filed by the revision petitioner's wife the Family Court found that she is entitled to claim maintenance from the revision petitioner and accordingly, directed the revision petitioner to pay Rs.1500/ - as monthly maintenance to her. M.C.No.133 of 2010 the revision petitioner sought for cancellation of the order in M.C.No.848 of 2006 virtually raising the same contentions. Besides raising the contention of his inability to earn for his own livelihood and treatment he contended that the daughters are earning income from their respective avocation and the brothers of his wife are also helping her. After considering all the aspects, the Family Court found that there is no change in the circumstances warranting interference with the said order dated 5 -10 -2007 in M.C.No.848 of 2006. It is found that for the past about 9 years, the revision petitioner had not cared to look after the counter petitioner -wife and that the daughters have already attained the marriageable age. In fact, the elder daughter got married pending the proceedings and it is contended that the revision petitioner had not even participated in the marriage. The younger daughter contended that she had availed loans for her studies as the revision petitioner had not cared to help her to pursue with her studies. They contended that the maintenance case was filed at a time they were students. The elder daughter was then doing her MBA course and the younger daughter was doing her nursing course. They adduced sufficient evidence oral and documentary, Exts. D1 to D3 series to substantiate their contentions. The marriage of the elder daughter was conducted with the help of her relatives and by borrowing amount from neighbours. It has come out in evidence that the younger daughter is getting only Rs. 5500/ - as monthly salary and she had deposed to the effect that herself and her mother viz; the wife of the revision petitioner are presently living in a rented house with a monthly rent of Rs. 2000/ - and that she is working at a distance of 30 km. away from their present residence. In fact, O.P.No. 588/2010 has been filed by the daughters seeking marriage expenses from the revision petitioner and it is still pending. The marriage of the elder daughter was conducted on 7 -9 -2011. Her net salary as is evident from Ext. XI (a) pay slip was only Rs.13,086/ - and gross salary was Rs.13,907/ -. She is married and living with her husband. The revision petitioner is feigning ignorance about all such aspects. It has come out in evidence that the revision petitioner is living in a RC house situated in a property having an extent of 12 = cents. The Family Court further found that it is only to escape such liabilities that that petition has filed M.C.No. 121/2010. Though the petitioner claims that he is suffering from various ailments, admittedly, he had not produced any document before the court to substantiate the same. Though he had specifically contended that he was under treatment of Dr.Isac he had not produced even a single prescription to support the same. In such circumstances and also taking note of his physical appearance the Family Court arrived at the conclusion he was a malingerer. That apart, it has come out in evidence that the revision petitioner got 12 = cents of property and a R.C. House at Ayakkkad and near to that he got another plot having an extent of 6= cents. Regarding the plot having an extent of 6 = cents his version was that he had not purchased the same whilst it was given to him by his sister for effecting its sale. At the same time, he would admit the fact that the document pertaining to the said property would not disclose entrustment of such a nature. During the cross examination the revision petitioner admitted that after 2006 he had not sold any property/properties over which he got possession and ownership till 2006. In the petition filed before the Family Court the revision petitioner herein contended that he had to sell three acres of property, paddy field and 84 cents of property solely on account of the luxuries way of life of the counter petitioner and the children. However, during the cross -examination, he admitted that those properties were actually sold in the year 1990 and further that those properties were sold for the purpose of purchasing a flat in Hyderabad. He did not adduced any evidence as to whether he is still possessing the same. The petitioner had not adduced any evidence to show that his wife is having any means to maintain her. He has also failed to prove that he is not an able bodied or minded person. Therefore, the Family Court has rightly found that there is no change in circumstances for cancelling the order in M.C. 848/2006. I do not find any reason to hold, in the circumstances that dismissal of M.C. 133/2010 as per the impugned order in R.P. (F.C.) No. 170/2012 suffers from any illegality or error warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. As regards, M.C. 121/2010, as noted earlier, at the time of filing of the said case the respondents therein, viz; his daughters were students. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve their contention that they some or R.P. (F.C.)NO. 163/2012 and R.P. (F.C.) NO. 170/2012 #8# how managed to complete their studies by availing loan and receiving help from their relatives. As regards, the elder daughter the marriage is over and the revision petitioner had not even participated in the marriage. The case filed by them seeking marriage expenses is pending. The elder daughter is presently living with her husband. The contention of the younger daughter that with the meagre income she is finding it difficult to meet both ends also cannot be disbelieved. About all, as regards the petitioner, he owns properties worth lakhs. He had not produced any evidence to show that he is not an able bodied or minded person and physically incapable to maintain himself. He had admitted before the Family Court that he got 12 = cents of property and a R.C. House. He had also admitted he got another plot having 6 = cents obtained in the year 1988 by way of partition. He is also engaged in textile business. In the totality of circumstances, there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned order R.P. (F.C.) 163/2012 viz. order in M.C. 121/2010, as well.

(3.) In the circumstances, the revision petitions are liable to fail. Accordingly, they are dismissed.