IMPORTANT POINTS
A legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter), who has attained majority, where such child is by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain himself alone is entitled to maintenance, after attaining majority. This Court in the above decisions has distinguished Noorsaba Kathoon (supra) and held that a major unmarried daughter is not entitled to claim maintenance from her parents unless her inability to maintain herself is attributable to her physical or mental abnormality or injury and that her mere status as unmarried daughter-whatever be a religion - does not entitle her to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The respondent's liability to maintain the third petitioner is limited till the date she has attained majority.

ORDER :

1. The respondent in MC No. 16/2013 on the file of the Family Court, Ottapalam, is the revision petitioner. The petitioners in the Maintenance Case (in short “MC”) are the respondents in this revision petition.

2. The petitioners filed the M.C seeking separate monthly maintenance from the revision petitioner at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- to the first petitioner, Rs. 3,000/- to the second petitioner and Rs. 2,000/- to the third and fourth petitioners, respectively. The parties are referred to as the “petitioners” and “respondent” as per their status in the M.C.

3. The petitioners filed the M.C. contending that the respondent is a driver by profession, and is employed in the Gulf. He earns a monthly income of Rs. 45,000/-. They averred that the respondent, despite having sufficient means, has willfully refused to maintain them. The respondent harassed the first petitioner and went away to the Gulf. The first petitioner has no source of income; the petitioners 2 to 4 are students and require maintenance allowance as claimed in the M.C.

4. The respondent opposed the M.C. by filing a counter statement. He admitted the marriage and the paternity of the children. His defense was that the first petitioner was leading an immoral life with a taxi driver; that the second petitioner was employed in a stationery shop and was getting Rs. 200/- per day, and that the respondent was only working as a salesman and drawing a salary of Rs. 12,500/- per month. Hence he prayed that the M.C. be dismissed.

5. The first petitioner was examined as PW-1. The respondent did not let in oral evidence but produced and marked Exts. D1 to D5.

6. The Family Court after considering the pleadings and evidence on record came to the conclusion that the respondent is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 2,500/- to the first petitioner, Rs. 1,500/- to the second petitioner and Rs. 1,000/- each to the petitioners 3 and 4.

7. It is assailing the impugned order, that this revision petition R.P. (FC) is filed.

8. Heard Sri. P.K. Mohanan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. P. Chandrasekhar, the learned counsel for the respondents.

9. The counsel for the revision petitioner/respondent submits that, during the pendency of this R.P. (FC), the second petitioner passed away, in a road accident on 3.9.2016. He concedes that the marriage and the paternity of the children are not disputed. He also admitted that the respondent has re-married.

10. On going through the records, it is seen that the respondent had not mounted the box. He had only produced Exts. D1 to D5. The only document that could be relied on is Ext. D2 statement issued by the Union Bank of India, Pattithara, which is certified under the banker's book of evidence. Exts. D1, D3 to D4 are not proved through the proper person and, therefore, cannot be relied.

11. Even though the counsel for the respondent argued that the first petitioner was living in adultery, I do not find any material to accept the said argument. Merely by making an aspersion is not sufficient to prove the grave allegation of adultery. Then the counsel contended that by the passing away of the second petitioner, the respondent's liability as against the deceased son stands extinguished. He also argued that during the pendency of the proceedings, the third petitioner attained majority. Thus, by virtue of Sec. 125 (1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the respondent is not liable to maintain the third petitioner.

12. As already pointed out, the respondent had not mounted the box and let in any contra evidence. Therefore, the allegation that the first petitioner is deriving income or living in adultery, as pleaded in the counter statement, has not been proved. During the course of cross-examination, another defense was attempted to built, that the first petitioner had an autorickshaw registered in her name, which she has given on hire, and that she was getting sufficient income from the vehicle. The respondent also produced Ext D2 to est