GOVINDANKUTTY Vs. LAKSHMIKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counter petitioner in M.C. No. 76/2013 on the file of the Family Court, Ottappalam, is the revision petitioner herein. The unfortunate mother, who is aged 80 years has been forced to come to a court of law, seeking maintenance from her son under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code').

(2.) It is alleged in the petition that, she has four daughters, who were married away and residing with their husbands and the revision petitioner is the only son. She has no means to maintain herself and suffering from illness as well. She had no independent income of her own. Revision petitioner is a PWD contractor and getting Rs. 50,000/- from his work. He is also doing real estate business. There is none to look after her. She requires Rs. 7,500/- per month for her maintenance. In spite of having capacity to maintain, he is not providing any maintenance to the respondent herein. So she filed the application.

(3.) Revision petitioner, who is the counter petitioner in the court below appeared and filed counter contending that, there is no bona fide on the part of the mother in filing the petition and this has been filed at the instigation of her younger daughter with whom now she is residing. The allegation was that he is not getting Rs. 50,000/- and he is a PWD contractor etc., is not correct. He is an agriculturist and suffering from several diseases. He had married away his daughter 2 1/2 years ago, incurring huge liabilities. He had taken a loan for the agriculture purpose from State Bank of Travancore, Sreekrishnapuram branch, but he could not repay the same. So they have initiated recovery proceedings and he approached the District Collector and got instalment facility to clear the dues. He had also taken education loan for his son and he could not pay the same. So the major portion of the salary amount of his son was attached. So he is not having income to pay separate maintenance to the petitioner in the lower court. He had also contended that, the family property was partitioned, a portion of property and also Rs. 80,000/- was given to the respondent, but she had given the property to the daughter, who had sold the same for Rs. 7,00,000/- to 3rd party and that amount is with the petitioner and the daughter by name Padmini. So she is not entitled to get the maintenance and he prayed for dismissal of the application.