2025:KER:26468 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RPFC NO. 111 OF 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.08.2008 IN MC NO.1 OF 2008 OF FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: AJITHKUMAR S/O MADHAVAN, CHOLAKKAL MEETHAL HOUSE, P.O. PANTHEERANKAVU, KODALNADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. P.V.ANOOP RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: PADMAVATHY W/O. MADHAVAN,, EDAPPARUTHI HOUSE, P.O. PANTHEERANKAVU, KODALNADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL. S THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2025, ALONG WITH RPFC.230/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:26468 RPFC NO.111 OF 2009 & RPFC NO.230 OF 2009 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RPFC NO. 230 OF 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.08.2008 IN MC NO.1 OF 2008 OF FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: 1 MADHAVAN AGED 81 YEARS, S/O.KELU EDAPPARUTHI HOUSE, P.O.PANTHEERANKAVU,, KODALNADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE. 2 PADMVATHI 73 YEARS, W/O.MADHAVAN EDAPPARUTHI HOUSE, P.O.PANTHEERANKAVU,, KODALNADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE., NALLALAM P.S.L BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL. S RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: AJITHKUMAR AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVAN CHOLAKKAL METHAL HOUSE,, P.O.PANTHEERANKAVU, KODALNADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE, NALLALAM P.S.L. BY ADV. SRI. P. V. ANOOP THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2025, ALONG WITH RPFC.111/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:26468 RPFC NO.111 OF 2009 & RPFC NO.230 OF 2009 3 ORDER [RPFC Nos.111/2009 & 230/2009] These Revision Petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Kozhikode in a proceedings initiated under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC). 2. The parties are referred to as they are shown in the impugned order. 3. The 1st petitioner is the father and the 2nd petitioner is the mother of the respondent. The petitioners filed a maintenance case against the respondent claiming maintenance invoking Section 125 of the Cr.PC. The Family Court after the trial found that the 1st petitioner is having job and income and hence, he is not entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent. However, the Family Court granted maintenance at the rate of ₹1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) per month to the 2nd petitioner. Challenging the rejection of the claim to the 1st petitioner for maintenance and also dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance awarded to the 2025:KER:26468 RPFC NO.111 OF 2009 & RPFC NO.230 OF 2009 4 2nd petitioner, the petitioners preferred RPFC No.230/2009 and challenging the quantum of maintenance granted to the 2nd petitioner, the respondent preferred RPFC No.111/2009. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners in RPFC No.230/2009 and the respondent in RPFC No.111/2009 reported no instruction. The learned counsel further submitted that the 1st petitioner in RPFC No.230/2009 is no more. The 2nd petitioner in RPFC No.230/2009 who is the respondent in RPFC No.111/2009 is not present. I have heard the counsel for the respondent in RPFC No.230/2009 and the petitioner in RPFC No.111/2009. 5. Since the 1st petitioner in RPFC No.230/2009, who is the father of the respondent, is no more, his challenge against the impugned order need not be considered. 6. The respondent does not have any case that the 2nd petitioner is having any job or income. The respondent being the son of the 2nd petitioner is legally and morally bound to maintain her. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent is doing business of soil and laterite stones by using JCB, driller 2025:KER:26468 RPFC NO.111 OF 2009 & RPFC NO.230 OF 2009 5 machine and earns ₹1,000/- per day. The respondent has denied the same. According to him, he does not have any job to maintain the 2nd petitioner. However, during the evidence, he has stated that he is working as a supplier in Hotel Maharaj and his daily income is ₹120/-. But, no such case is projected in the counter statement. The respondent did not adduce any evidence to show his actual income. He is an able-bodied person. He does not have any case that he has any disability to do work. Considering the ability of the respondent and the requirements of the 2nd petitioner, the monthly maintenance of ₹1,000/- awarded by the Family Court appears to be very low. Hence, the monthly maintenance awarded to the 2nd petitioner is enhanced to ₹2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) which shall be paid by the respondent from the date of the impugned order ie., 27.08.2008. These Revision Petitions are disposed of as above. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE BR