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