Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
FAROOKH – Appellant
Versus
KAYYAKKUTTY@ KADEEJA – Respondent
RPFC NO. 375 OF 2025 | MC NO.229 OF 2022
The legal document pertains to a family law case concerning maintenance obligations under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant, the son, challenged a maintenance order issued by the Family Court, which awarded the respondent, his mother, a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000. The court’s decision to uphold the maintenance order was based on an evaluation of the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the case.
The court acknowledged the statutory basis for maintenance claims and assessed both parties' claims regarding their financial capabilities (!) (!) . The respondent, aged 60, was found to have no independent source of income and was unable to maintain herself, whereas the petitioner was employed abroad and claimed a substantial income, although he failed to produce documentary evidence to substantiate this claim (!) (!) .
The court examined evidence regarding the respondent’s living conditions and income, noting the absence of proof that she was engaged in cattle rearing or earning income from such activities. The respondent’s husband was providing her with maintenance, but the court emphasized that this did not absolve the son of his statutory obligation to support his mother (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the court found that the maintenance amount awarded was reasonable and necessary, considering the respondent’s needs and the petitioner’s financial capacity. The court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the maintenance order (!) .
This case underscores the principle that a son’s obligation to support his mother persists regardless of other sources of support or the mother’s own income, reaffirming the court's authority to enforce family maintenance obligations under the relevant statutory provisions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. acknowledges maintenance petition’s basis under statute. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. assesses both parties' claims regarding financial capability. (Para 4) |
| 3. evaluates evidence about respondent's income and living conditions. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. reiterates son’s obligation to support mother irrespective of other maintenance. (Para 7) |
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.07.2025 in M.C.No. 229 of 2022 passed by the Family Court, Tirur, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner is the son of the respondent. The respondent filed a maintenance case against the petitioner claiming maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The Family Court, Tirur, after trial, granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition.
3. I have heard both sides.
4. The respondent is aged 60 years. Her husband is alive. According to her, she has no job or source of income and is unable to maintain herself. The petitioner contends that the respondent is able to maintain herself. According to him, the respondent is rearing cattle and earning sufficient income. It is further alleged that the respondent is a pensioner and is getting pension. It is also contended that RW1, who is the husband of the respondent, is providing maintenance to her.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner is employed at Gulf. The respondent contends that the petitioner is earning Rs.2,00,000/- (Ruplees Two Lakhs only) per month. Though the petitioner has denied the same, he has not produced any documentary evidence to show his actual income. Even though the petitioner has taken a contention that the respondent is a pensioner and is getting pension, there is abolutely no evidence to substantiate the same.
6. On the side of the petitioner, the husband of the respondent was examined as RW1. He deposed that he is providing maintenance to the respondent. The Family Court after evaluating the evidence found that his evidence cannot be relied upon. I find no reason to take a different view. That apart, even if the husband provides maintenance to the wife, that would not by itself absolve the liability of the son to maintain his mother who is unable to maintain herself.
7. The petitioner, who is leading an affluent life abroad, wants his own mother aged 60 years to go for rearing cattle and earn her livelihood. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the respondent is engaged in rearing cattle and getting any income out of it. Considering the requirement of the respondent and the means of the petitioner, the maintenance of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Family Court appears to be absolutely reasonable, if not inadequate. I find no merit in this revision petition.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
