IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 RPFC.No. 396 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.219/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------- ABDUL RAHMAN, AGED 3 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER RASNI ABDUL KAREEM, MUKALAL HOUSE, PALLARIMANGLAM KARA, POTHANIKKAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.MADHAVAN NAIR SRI.V.B.PREMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ----------------------- SUBAIR E.A., S/O ABDUL RAHMAN, IKKARAKUDI HOUSE, ADIMALI KARA, ADIMALI P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ELIAS THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 396 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of February, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is filed by a minor child/claimant aged about 3 years now through his mother and guardian aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance which is directed to be paid to him by the Judge of the Family Court under Sec.125 of the Cr.P.C. The mother of the child is divorced. The father of the child has re-married. He has begotten one more child in such second marriage. 2. The liability to pay maintenance to the child is practically conceded. The dispute is only about the quantum of maintenance which is liable to be paid. The mother of the child examined herself as P.W.1. The father of the child examined himself as R.W.1. Exts.B1 and B2 were marked - those are documents to show that meager amounts were sent R.P.(FC) No. 396 of 2007 -: 2 :- earlier by the father towards maintenance of the child. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Judge of the Family Court had not realistically assessed the needs of the child and the means of the father of the child. The father of the child asserted that he was sitting idle and not doing any work. His father supports him, his second wife and the child. This is the stand taken by him. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has sufficient means. His father is a very wealthy person in the locality. The son maintains the property of the father and also derives income from his work. In any view of the matter, the amount of Rs.600/- awarded i.e., at the rate of Rs.20/- per day for the child is so grossly inadequate and the same, being perversely inadequate and grossly disproportionate to the possible and probable means of the father of the child, warrants interference. 4. The evidence of the respondent as R.W.1 clearly shows that he is looked after by his father and he gets amounts from his father who looks after him, his wife and the child. If that be so, the respondent has only got to work and support the child by the wife in the earlier marriage. In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that a direction to pay an amount of Rs.40/- per day to the child – an amount of Rs.1,200/- per mensem would be R.P.(FC) No. 396 of 2007 -: 3 :- eminently reasonable even on the admitted case of the respondent – father. 5. I am satisfied that the impugned order does warrant interference. In these circumstances, the quantum of maintenance deserves to be enhanced. 6. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is upheld in all other respects; but the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid is re-fixed at Rs.1,200/- per mensem – from the date of the petition before the Family Court. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge (R. BASANT, JUDGE) R.P.(FC) No. 396 of 2007 -: 4 :- Nan/