RAMESH Vs. SAVITHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C. No.66 of 2012 on the files of the Family Court, Irinjalakuda, filed by the respondent herein. The above M.C. was filed by the respondent who is the mother of the revision petitioner under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the revision petitioner. According to her, she is aged 76 years and the revision petitioner is her only son. She claimed maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.8,500/- per mensem from the revision petitioner. After trial, the Family Court directed the revision petitioner to pay maintenance as prayed for. This order is under challenge in this revision petition.

(2.) ACCORDING to the respondent, the revision petitioner is the only son and three others are daughters. Her husband died on 30/3/1987. The husband had landed property of 2 acres and 4 cents which devolved to the respondent and her children on succession. But the respondent and her daughters relinquished their rights over the property in favour of the revision petitioner on an understanding that the revision petitioner should give maintenance allowance to the respondent. The respondent had purchased shares for Rs.50,000/- in the name of the revision petitioner before his marriage by borrowing money from others. The husband of the respondent had purchased 8 cents of land in favour of the revision petitioner in addition to the landed properties mentioned above. However, the revision petitioner was affectionate towards the respondent till his marriage. Thereafter, both the revision petitioner and his wife subjected the respondent to cruelty by not providing food, removing amenities from the house and, at last, she was constrained to live separately and she frequently undergoes treatment for various ailments and huge amount is required for her treatment frequently. Now, she is living with her family pension of a small sum; whereas the revision petitioner is working abroad and getting a monthly salary of Rs.50,000/-, profit from shares of Rs.10,000/- and also getting a substantial income from the landed properties. The revision petitioner and his family are living with high standard of life by maintaining big building, car and all other luxuries of life. According to the respondent, she is also having right to live at par with the living standard of his son/revision petitioner. She needs a minimum of Rs.3,000/- per month for medicine. Above all, she has to pay Rs.1,500/- as interest for the amount borrowed to purchase shares in favour of the revision petitioner. Thus, she claimed Rs.8,500/- for her monthly maintenance in addition to the pension.

(3.) I heard learned counsel for both parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is admitting his liability to pay maintenance to his mother; but he is challenging the quantum of amount only. He admitted that the mother is old and inevitably she needs the help of another through out day and night. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Family Court has not considered the monthly income which is being received by the respondent as family pension and the day-to-day expenditure shown in the petition is excessive and an amplified version only. He is getting only Rs.12,000/- per month. Therefore, the direction to pay Rs.8,500/- per month is unjust and unreasonable.