The statutory duty to provide maintenance is reaffirmed, irrespective of claimant's personal circumstances or relatives' capabilities, particularly for elderly subjects.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 order of the learned Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, not primarly because it enhanced the quantum of compensation payable to the respondent from Rs.3000/- to Rs.6000/- per month; but because it is so done in an original petition, which was decreed and then confirmed by this court in Mat. Appeal No. 39 of 2008 .

2. Sri. Sachithananda Pai – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, though his client's main challenge in this original petition is against the impugned order being passed in an original petition, the decree which has become final on account of the appellate orders of this court, he also has a case that the amount now imposed is high. He argued that, when the application filed by the respondent itself is not maintainable for the aforementioned reason, an enhancement of the maintenance from Rs.3000/- to Rs.6000/-, is impermissible. He further explained that his client has a permanent disability, which incapacitates him from paying more than Rs.3000/- per month; and that he has a family to take care of. He concluded saying that, in any event, the respondent is being taken care of by her daughter, who is earning very well, thus not being in requirement of any maintenance from his client.

3. It is thus obvious from the arguments of Sri.

Sachithananda Pai that, the fundamental challenge of the petitioner against the impugned order is that it has been issued in an original petition, the decree in which has now become final on account of the appellate judgment from this court. The secondary argument is that the amount now ordered is high, for the reason that he is fiscally incapable; and also because the respondent is taken care of by her daughter, who is doing well abroad.

4. On the first issue, we notice that the learned Family Court has considered it in detail in paragraph 8 of Ext. P2. It has concluded that, going by any of the provisions that are applicable – either Section 25 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act , or Section 37 of the Special Marriage Act , or Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 – there is no requirement that an application to alter or modify the maintenance should be filed as a separate Original Petition, or as a separate cause. We are in full favor with these findings; also because, the respondent is a lady of more than 82 years of age, and it will be very iniquitous and harsh on her if we ask her to apply for enhancement of maintenance through a separate original petition, which we are certain that she would be incapable of doing on account of her present status.

5. That said, the fact remains that a woman of the age of the respondent would require nothing less than Rs.6000/- per month, as ordered, for her essential sustenance. It is virtually without contest that she is undergoing treatment for various ailments; and it is ineluctable that she must be having other physical inabilities on account of her advanced age.

6. This is why we began this judgment, saying that the real dispute of the petitioner appears not against the quantum; but edificed on a hyper technical contention that the enhancement has been ordered in an Original Petition, the decree in which has become final.

7. Coming to the stated incapacity of the petitioner to pay more than Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance, he admits that he is running a workshop and is earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Of course, he qualifies this by further saying that he has been disabled on account of an accident on 18.07.2024. The learned court has considered Ext. B1 certificate – a copy of which has been handed over across the bar to us by the learned counsel for the petiti