IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 52 of 2004()
1. K.SAIDUMUHAMMED, S/O. ABDULLAH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VAILISSERI SAFIYA
... Respondent
2. MUSAIBA (MINOR 12 YEARS)
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.MUJEEB
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :30/05/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.P.F.C.No. 52 of 2004
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner in this revision petition assails an order
passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the Family Court obliging
the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.450/- p.m. to his child aged
about 12 years and a student of standard VIII. The mother of the
child has been divorced. Paternity is admitted. The petitioner, it
is alleged, is a Madrasa teacher and was also working as coolie.
The petitioner resisted the claim on the ground that at the time of
divorce there was an agreement to pay an amount of Rs.50/- p.m.
to the child, who is not entitled to claim anything more than the
amount so agreed, it is contended.
2. Secondly it was contended that the petitioner has only
employment as a Madrassa teacher and from such employment
he gets only an amount of Rs.900/- p.m. Out of this he has to
maintain his present wife and child as also his aged parents. In
these circumstances it is contended that he is not in a position to
R.P.F.C.No. 52 of 2004
2
pay Rs.1000/- as claimed. In the course of the proceedings he offered
to pay an amount of Rs.350/- p.m. to the child. The mother of the child
tendered evidence as PW1. The petitioner examined himself as CPW1.
The learned Judge of the Family Court, on an anxious consideration of
all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the offer made by
the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.350/- as maintenance to the child
cannot be accepted and considering the needs of the claimant and
means of the petitioner an amount of Rs.450/- p.m. can justly be
granted. Accordingly the impugned order is passed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance?
The only contention raised before me is that at any rate the learned
Judge should not have awarded any amount more than Rs.350/- which
he had reasonably offered.
4. The learned Judge of the Family Court appears to have
considered the question in detail. The learned Judge came to the
conclusion that the version of the petitioner about his means cannot
reasonably be accepted. That assertion of his shows the nature of the
R.P.F.C.No. 52 of 2004
3
person, it was observed. Going by the details given by the petitioner
himself, he could not survive getting an amount of Rs.900/- p.m.
There was also evidence to show that the petitioner had married thrice
and had divorced twice. The court below felt that it will not be
unreasonable to draw appropriate inferences from such conduct of the
petitioner. In any view of the matter, the learned Judge of the Family
Court realistically reckoned all the relevant circumstances and came to
the conclusion that an amount of Rs.450/- can safely be granted.
5. That there was an agreement at the time of divorce to pay
Rs.50/- p.m. is not conclusive or binding on the minor as an amount of
Rs.50/- cannot obviously discharge the responsibility of the petitioner
to pay maintenance to his 12 year old child. I am satisfied that the
impugned order does not warrant revisional interference.
6. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm