The 2nd petitioner is the minor son of the respondent herein. Raising his entitlement for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”), an application was filed before the Family Court, Kottarakkara. In the application, the 2nd petitioner was described as represented by the 1st petitioner, his maternal grandmother.

2. It was contended in the application that the 2nd petitioner was under the care and protection of the 1st petitioner and he requires a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards maintenance. It was further contended that the respondent was having sufficient means and that he had neglected the 2nd petitioner from the year 2012. It was also pointed out that an earlier application for maintenance was filed by the mother of the 2nd petitioner and the jurisdictional court was pleased to order maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/-per mensem. However, the said order was never complied with.

3. The respondent entered appearance and challenged the very maintainability of the petition. It was contended that the minor along with his mother were permanently residing in Mumbai and his wife was gainfully employed. He would point out that the child was not residing with the 2nd petitioner and hence, she cannot be heard to contend that she has no source of income to maintain the minor child. The respondent challenged the locus standi of the 1st petitioner to maintain the application and filed a petition to hear the question of maintainability as a preliminary issue.

4. The learned Family Court considered the submissions and held that the claim of the 1st petitioner that she has no source of income to maintain the child cannot be accepted, as the 2nd petitioner was residing with his mother in Mumbai. It was held that the application itself is not maintainable. The above order is assailed in this revision petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the order passed by the court below is perverse and against all tenets of law. He would refer to Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and would contend that the learned Magistrate was bound to consider whether the respondent was a person having sufficient means and also whether he had neglected or refused to maintain his child, who is unable to maintain himself. Upon proof of such neglect or refusal, orders had to be issued to the respondent to make monthly allowance for the maintenance of the child. In the instant case, admittedly, the minor son of the respondent was the 2nd petitioner and the 1st petitioner admittedly is a person having sufficient interest in the minor child. Before the trial had commenced, the mother of the child had also executed a power of attorney authorizing the 1st petitioner to conduct the proceeding for and on her behalf. According to the learned counsel, Section 125 of the Cr.P.C provides a speedy remedy by a summary procedure to enforce liability of maintenance and the courts are bound to liberally construe the provisions as the primary object is to give social justice to women and children and to prevent destitution and vagrancy.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would refute the submissions advanced and it was contended that the attempt of the 1st petitioner was to reap unjust enrichment in the name of the 2nd petitioner. The minor child is living in Mumbai with his mother and he is also pursuing his education there. There were numerous discrepancies in the petition and even the income of the mother was not mentioned anywhere in the petition.

7. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the pleadings and the materials made available.

8. For appreciating the rival contentions, it would be apposite to have a glance through the relevant provisions. Section 125 (1) of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

“Section 125 - Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents:

(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain.-

(a) his wife, unable to maintain hersel