1. The respondents in M.C.No.1209 of 2010 on the files of the Family Court, Malappuram are the revision petitioners and the respondent herein was the petitioner therein. The respondent herein is a nonagenarian with nine children including the petitioners and she filed the M.C seeking maintenance only from the petitioners. Admittedly, she is residing with another daughter by name Rugmini. M.C.No.1209 of 2010 was filed claiming maintenance from each of the revision petitioners at the rate of Rs.5000 per month under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is a nonagenarian and obviously, she approached the Family Court with the averments that she got no means to sustain herself, that she is suffering from dotage and various ailments and she is not in a position to meet the expenses for her treatment on her own. Upon the rival contentions, the Family Court formulated the points as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance under section 125, Cr.P.C. and if so, what should be rate, for consideration. On the side of the revision petitioners/respondents therein, the first petitioner was examined as RW1. No documents were produced on behalf of the revision petitioners as also the respondent herein/the petitioner therein. After a careful consideration of the evidence, the Family Court arrived at the conclusion that the respondent is not having any means or income to maintain herself and the petitioners are having sufficient income to maintain their mother, the respondent herein. In that view of the matter, the M.C was allowed and the revision petitioners were directed to pay Rs.3000 each per month to the respondent from the date of filing of the M.C. Evidently, revision petitioners had taken up a contention that, they would pay maintenance and maintain their mother only if she comes and lives with any of them. The said contention was rightly rejected by the Family Court relying on a decision of this Court in Chathapopantavida Balan v. Chathapopantavida Devi [2009(1) KHC 156]. It was held therein that the son could not contend that he would pay maintenance only if the mother resides with him and that obligation of a person having sufficient means to maintain his parent, child or wife did not ordinarily depend on the place of residence of such parent, child or wife. That position of law is irrefragable.

2. The core contention of the revision petitioners is that the Family Court had failed to take into consideration the question whether petitioners 2, 4 and 5 herein who are the daughters of the respondent got sufficient means of their own independently of the means or income of their husbands while passing the impugned order and therefore, it is liable to be interfered with. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai [1987 (2) SCC 278]. It was held that the object of section 125 is to provide a summary remedy to save dependents from destitution and vagrancy and to serve a social purpose. It is the moral obligation of a son or a daughter from the social obligation to maintain his/her parents and the expression “his father or mother” in clause (d) of section 125(1) is not confined only to the father or mother of the son but also to the father or mother of the daughter and as such that expression should also be construed as “her father or mother” in view of section 8 IPC read with section 2(y) Cr.P.C and section 13(1) of the General Clauses Act, it was held. Paragraphs 7 and 8 are relevant in this context and they read thus:-

7. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has urged that under clause (d) of Section 125(1) a father is not entitled to claim maintenance from his daughter whether married or not. Our attention has been drawn to the use of the pronoun 'his' in clause (d) and it is submitted that the pronoun indicates that it is only the