LAWS(KER)-2012-9-457

SAJI THOMAS, AGED 38 YEARS S/O THOMAS, KUZHIANKALATHADATHIL HOUSE PARAMPUZHA KARA, PERUMBAIKKAD (P.O), KOTTAYAM, Vs. K.T. THOMAS, S/O THOMAS, KUZAHIANKALATHADATHIL HOUSE PARAMPUZHA KARA, PERUMBAIKKAD (P.O) KOTTAYAM 686028

Decided On September 14, 2012
Saji Thomas, Aged 38 Years S/O Thomas, Kuzhiankalathadathil House Parampuzha Kara, Perumbaikkad (P.O), Kottayam, Appellant
V/S
K.T. Thomas, S/O Thomas, Kuzahiankalathadathil House Parampuzha Kara, Perumbaikkad (P.O) Kottayam 686028 Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the sons of the respondent in this Revision Petition (FC). The respondent filed M.C.No.154/2011 before the Family Court, Kottayam seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The Family Court, by the impugned order, directed each of the petitioners to pay Rs. 500/ - (Rupees five hundred only) per month to the respondent as maintenance. That order is under challenge in this Revision Petition (FC). The contention of the petitioners are two fold. First is that the respondent was not a caring father to the petitioners and not even a responsible husband to their mother. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent totally neglected his family and such a person is not entitled to get maintenance from his sons. It is further submitted that the mother of the petitioners has filed a suit for maintenance against the respondent, which was decreed @ Rs. 750/ - (Rupees seven hundred and fifty only) per month. According to them the present M.C. is a counterblast to the said litigation. Secondly, they would contend that, they do not have sufficient means to pay Rs. 500/ - (Rupees five hundred only), insofar as they are residing in rented houses.

(2.) I have considered the contentions of the petitioners. I am of opinion that, on both counts, the petitioners have not made out a case for interference. There is no law which says that, if the father has not cared his wife or children properly, he is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., during his old age, even assuming that what the petitioners contended is true. In fact, that is what the family court has also held. As far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, Rs. 500/ - (Rupees five hundred only) to be paid by each of the petitioner is a pittance and I am not inclined to interfere with the same.