IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 RPFC.No. 64 of 2004(E) ---------------------- MC.428/2002 of Family Court, Manjeri .................... REVISION PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ PARAYARAMBATH VELAYUDHAN @ KUNHAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, P.O. THEKKAN KUTTOOR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.A.VELAYUDHAN, MR.UNNIKRISHNAN V. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. CHEERIKKAL SANTHA, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O. KARAPPAN, PERUMANNA AMSOM, KILARI DESOM, MOOCHIKKAL, P.O. KUTTIPALA, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. PRITHVI RAJ, AGED 2 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER CHEERIKKAL SANTHA, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O. KARAPPAN, PERUMANNA AMSOM, KILARI DESOM, MOOCHIKKAL P.O., KUTTIPALA, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. MR.PHILIP T.VARGHESE, MR.THOMAS T.VARGHESE. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== RP(FC) No.64 OF 2004 ===================== Dated this the 10th day of February 2009 O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C.No.428 of 2002. Claimants are alleging to be the wife and child of the respondent in the petition and they have claimed maintenance. The respondent-husband in the petition disputed the marriage as well as the paternity of the child. The court below found that the first petitioner therein is not the legally wedded wife and therefore declined maintenance, but found that the second petitioner is born to the revision petitioner and ordered maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month. It is against that decision, the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard. Since there is no challenge against the order of refusal to pay maintenance to the wife, it need not detain no longer. 3. The next question is about the child. The petitioner herein disputed the very paternity of the child. The DNA test was conducted. It was found that he is the father of the child. The DNA test report was attempted to be objected on the ground that in the spelling of the second RP(FC) 64/2004 -:2:- petitioner, there was an 'i' in addition and in the father's name the word 'alias' is omitted. But the court found that the photographs of both were there and it was admitted that sample of blood has been taken and therefore the court did not give any credence to the typographical mistakes committed in the report and it was totally convinced in relation to the photographs as well as admission of taking blood samples. The best scientific evidence is made available and one need not detract from the finding entered into that subject. 4. The next question is regarding the quantum. It has come out in evidence that the petitioner is aged about 44 years and is having about 19 cents of property. The contention that he used to make a daily income of Rs.150/- from his labour work and Rs.300/- from the sale of illicit arrack was considered and the sale of illicit arrack was found against him. There may not be work on all days and the income also will vary, when you are only an ordinary labourer. Taking into consideration all those aspects, it will be on little higher side to make Rs.1,000/- for the reason that he may not be able to spare that amount. Therefore, I am inclined to reduce Rs.200/- and fix the amount at Rs.800/-. In the result, the RP(FC) is partly allowed and the petitioner is directed to pay maintenance to the second petitioner at the rate of Rs.800/- RP(FC) 64/2004 -:3:- per month from the date of petition and that she is also authorised to receive the amount which the mother had spent towards expenses for the DNA test. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-