IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930 RPFC.No. 46 of 2009() --------------------- M.C.NO.527/04 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER --------------------------------------- E.MOHAMMED, AGED 45, S/O.HAJI ISMAIL PILLAI, VILAYIL VEEDU, KALLOOR, MANGALAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- ALFY (MINOR AGED 5), D/O.E.MOHAMMED, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER NAZEEJA, AGED 35, RESIDING AT 'BREEZE', CHANDAVILA, KAZHAKOOTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 46 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February, 2009 ORDER The petitioner in this RP(FC) assails an order passed under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance to his minor child at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per mesem from the date of the petition to the date of the order and at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per mensem from the date of the order. 2. Paternity is admitted. It is also admitted that the mother of the child is employed. The liability to pay maintenance of the child is virtually not disputed by the father of the petitioner. Before the court below, there was evidence of the mother/claimant as P.W.1 and the petitioner as R.W.1. Ext.A1 salary certificate of the petitioner was proved. Exts.B1 and B2 series are the documents to show that Money Orders were sent earlier and they were received by the mother of the R.P.(FC) No. 46 of 2009 -: 2 :- child. It is in the light of these circumstances that the learned Judge of the Family Court proceeded to pass the impugned order. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner, first of all, contends that he had offered to pay maintenance to the child at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per mensem only from the date of the order and the court below was not, at any rate, justified in ordering payment of maintenance at that rate from the date of the petition. It is further contended that the quantum of maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per mensem from the date of the petition and Rs.3,000/- per mensem from the date of the order is not justified at all. It is grossly excessive and perverse, it is contended. The petitioner has a further contention that it was not a case where he was unwilling to make payment of maintenance. He had sent the amounts by Money Orders earlier. There was refusal on the part of the mother of the claimant to receive the amount and that is why payment was not made. 4. I have considered all these contentions. Ext.A1 salary R.P.(FC) No. 46 of 2009 -: 3 :- certificate clearly shows that the monthly income of the petitioner employed as an Assistant Executive Engineer is more than Rs.20,000/- per mensem though his carry home salary is shown to be only Rs.10,207/-. Even according to the petitioner, he is willing to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- per mensem. In these circumstances, the quantification of the maintenance payable at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per mensem from the date of the petition to the date of the order and Rs.3,000/- per mensem thereafter cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be held to be grossly erroneous or perverse as to justify the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 5. The next question is whether the court below has erred in directing payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per mesem from the date of the petition and not from the date of the order. The learned counsel argues that the agreement was only to make payment from the date of the order. 6. There is virtually no claim for absolution from liability and, in these circumstances, the petitioner must certainly be mulcted with liability to make payment of maintenance from the dater of the petition and not from the date of the order. True R.P.(FC) No. 46 of 2009 -: 4 :- that the court has a discretion under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. to direct payment of maintenance either from the date of the order or from the date of the petition. In the absence of semblance of a satisfactory explanation as to why the amounts were not paid or deposited in court towards maintenance of the child, the direction of the court below to pay maintenance from the date of the petition does appear to me to be absolutely justified. 7. Thirdly the learned counsel contends that there was no neglect or refusal. Admittedly there has been no payment of maintenance from the date of the petition. According to the petitioner, he has remitted the amounts in a separate bank account in the name of the child. He need only withdraw the same and make payment now. The fact that he has allegedly deposited the amount in a bank of his choice (regarding which there is no direct or tangible evidence available) cannot lead to a conclusion that there was no neglect or refusal on the part of the petitioner. If he has already remitted the amounts in any bank account he need only withdraw the same and pay the same to the claimant/child. R.P.(FC) No. 46 of 2009 -: 5 :- 8. In any view of the matter, I am not persuaded to agree that the impugned order directing payment of maintenance suffers from any vice as to warrant or justify the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 9. This revision petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Needless to say, credit shall be given to the amounts, if any, paid by Money Orders during the pendency of the proceedings. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge R.P.(FC) No. 46 of 2009 -: 6 :-