IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 137 of 2007()
1. BABY, AGED 42 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ATHIRA, AGED 7 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.BIJUMON
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :14/01/2010
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN,J.
=====================
R.P.(F.C) No.137 OF 2007
=====================
Dated this the 14th day of January 2010.
JUDGMENT
This revision is preferred against the order of the Family
Court, Ernakulam in M.C. No.110/05.The minor girl aged 6 years had
claimed maintenance from the father and the Court had ordered for
payment of Rs.900/- as maintenance. It can be seen from the order
that the father was prepared to even deny the paternity of the child .
He moved the application for DNA test later withdrew it and would
contend that he has filed a consolidated proceeding for declaration
of paternity of the child by way of O.P and it is pending before the
Court. Since paternity of the child is a subject matter in a fulfledged
proceeding. I do not want to make any observations in this case.
Now the only remaining question is the quantum of maintenance.
The father is a driver admittedly. According to him he is only having
an income of above Rs.3,375/- but the Family Court made an
assessment of itself fixing the income as Rs.300/- per day. I do not
find any mistake committed by the Family Court for the reason that
the pay structure, the daily allowances and collection Batta are
components of a driver’s emoluments and Rs.6,000/- can be safely
R.P.(F.C) No.137 OF 2007 2
stated to be reasonable income. It is true that he has to maintain
one of his child as well as his mother. The petitioner is a girl who
had started going to school and she has to be educated and
therefore a maintenance of Rs.900/- per month to such child by any
stretch of imagination cannot be said to be on the higher side.
Therefore, I decline to interfere, the revision lacks merits and hence
dismissed.
M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE.
mns