IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 310 of 2007()
1. T.V.KRISHNAN, AGED YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. T.M.PATTI, AGED 48 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. KANAK @ SHEEBA, AGED 14 YEARS,
3. SURESHKUMAR, AGED 11 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS
For Respondent :SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :15/03/2010
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN,J.
======================
R.P.(F.C) No.310 OF 2007
======================
Dated this the 15th day of March 2010.
O R D E R
This revision is preferred against the order of the
Family Court, Kasaragode in M.C.No.29/2005. The revision
petitioner is the husband who has been ordered to pay
maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- to the second
petitioner from 18.8.1997 till she attains of the age of
majority. The court below first referred the persons for DNA
test to find out the paternity of petitioners 2 and 3. The
DNA test revealed that the revision petitioner is the
biological father of the second petitioner and negatived the
same with respect to the 3rd petitioner. Unfortunately
litigation has started as early as in 1985 and it has come up
in revision. When the court ordered maintenance at the rate
of Rs.250/- or so and thereafter in the revision the order
was set aside and the matter remitted back to the
Magistrate Court from where on establishment of the Family
R.P.(F.C) No.310 OF 2007 2
Court it has been transfered to the said court. There is
absolutely no discussion or evidence with respect to the
means of the person. The attempt of the revision petitioner
is to wriggle out of maintenance to 2nd petitioner is on the
ground that materials prove that the 1st petitioner was
leading a loose life. It cannot be accepted for the reason that
a scientific test reveals paternity of the child. The law
always seems in favour of finding the paternity and it is
not proper to bastardise the children which will create a
great havoc in the society. The DNA test has established
the factum that the revision petitioner is the biological father
of the 2nd petitioner and therefore, I do not propose to
disturb that finding.
2. So far as the quantum is concerned, materials are
lacking. The court at one point of time fixed maintenance
at Rs.250/- and, it is only in 2003, the maintenance limit of
Rs.500/- was taken away. It is submitted that he is also a
man without much resources. Therefore, taking into
consideration all these aspects, I am inclined to refix the
R.P.(F.C) No.310 OF 2007 3
quantum of maintenance from 18.8.1997 till 1.7.2003 at the
rate of Rs.500/- per mensem, and From, 2.7.2003 till the
attainment of majority by the child at Rs.700/- per month.
I make it very clear that whenever the child attains
majority she will ceased to have entitlement to get
maintenance from the father. Disposed of accordingly.
M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE.
mns