IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 RPFC.No. 153 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.278/2004 of FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... : REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- VIMAL KUMAR T.T., KALATHIVELIYIL VEEDU, PATTANAKKADU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.ABDUL RAHIM SRI.P.V.KURIACHAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. DHANYA G. VIMAL, AGED 8 YEARS, D/O. VIMAL KUMAR, RESIDING AT MADURAIL HOUSE, DESHABHIMANI ROAD, ELAMAKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM, (MINOR), REPRESENTED HER MOTHER GEETHA VIMAL KUMAR, RESIDING AT MADURAIL HOUSE, DESHABHIMANI ROAD, ELAMAKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. DIVYA G. VIMAL, AGED 4 YEARS, D/O. VIMAL KUMAR, RESIDING AT MADURAIL HOUSE, DESHABHIMANI ROAD, ELAMAKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM, (MINOR), REP. HER MOTHER GEETHA VIMAL KUMAR, R/AT MADURAIL HOUSE, DESHABHIMANI ROAD, ELAMAKKARA PO., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2008, ALONG WITH RPFC NO.30 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.Nos.153 of 2007 and30 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of February 2008 O R D E R These revision petitions are filed by the rival contestants allegedly aggrieved by a common order. Under the said order, the father - revision petitioner in R.P.F.C.No.153/07 was directed to pay maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C at the rate of Rs.750/- per mensum each to his two children aged 8 years and 4 years respectively. I shall refer to the contestants as father and children hereafter. 2. Paternity is admitted. That the mother of the children and the father are residing separately is also admitted. Both the mother and the father are Government employees and that is also admitted. Mother gets a total income of Rs.10,105/- as monthly salary whereas the father gets a monthly gross income of Rs.9,125/-. Both children are now residing with the mother. 3. Liability to pay maintenance for the two children is not disputed by the father. The Women's Commission had advised the father to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.300/- per mensum to each of the two children. The wife complained that even that amount was not being paid and that amount does not at any rate discharge the liability to pay maintenance to the R.P.F.C.No.153/07 & 30/08 2 children. Payment of that amount will not take the father out of the category of persons who “refuse and neglect” to maintain their children. Consistent with the income of the father and the needs of the children atleast an amount of Rs.2,000/- per mensum may be directed to be paid to the two children, it was prayed. 4. The father contended that he is unable to pay the said amount claimed. He has the obligation/responsibility to maintain his mother who is sick. He is one of the three sons of his mother, it was further admitted. The learned Judge of the Family Court surprisingly, according to me, came to the conclusion that the duty of the father to pay maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C can be discharged by his paying an amount of Rs.750/- each to the two children. The impugned order incorporates the said direction. 5. Both the father and the children (through their mother) are before me. The father assails the impugned order on the short ground that the specification that the amount of Rs.750/- per mensum to each of the children is intended for “their clothing, educational expenses and medical expenses” is unjustified. Such an observation may, in future, attract to him R.P.F.C.No.153/07 & 30/08 3 the liability to discharge all the expenses for clothing, educational expenses and medical expenses of the two children. He is unable to undertake that heavy responsibility. In these circumstances, that observation may be deleted, this is the short prayer in the revision petition filed by the father. 6. In the revision petition filed by the children through their mother it is contended that the amount awarded is grossly insufficient and perversely disproportionate to the needs of the claimants as also the proved means of the father. 7. I am in ready agreement with this contention raised by the learned counsel for the children. A father, who is getting an amount of Rs.9,125/-, even assuming that he keeps apart half of the amount for the maintenance of himself and his aged mother, will still be left with an amount exceeding Rs.4,500/- a month. In any view of the matter, the direction to pay only an amount of Rs.750/- per mensum to the two children is grossly inadequate and perverse. I am satisfied that, taking all the relevant inputs into account including the specific evidence about the income of the father and the evidenced probabilities of the needs of the children, the father must have been directed to pay atleast an amount of Rs.1,500/- per mensum. The impugned R.P.F.C.No.153/07 & 30/08 4 order certainly warrants revisional interference as the same is unrealistic and does not take into account the needs of the claimants or the means of their father. 8. In the result: a) R.P.F.C.No.153/07 is dismissed but with the observation that the amounts paid under Section 125 Cr.P.C are to be reckoned as payments towards the composite needs of the children. b) R.P.F.C.No.30/08 is allowed. The impugned order is modified. The father - the petitioner in R.P.F.C.No.153/07 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) per mensum each as monthly maintenance to the two children (Total Rs.3,000/-). I make it clear that this amount is fixed on the basis of the evidence available as on the date of the petition field in 2004. The direction that the amount shall be payable from the date of the order passed by the Family Court is also upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C.No.153/07 & 30/08 5 R.P.F.C.No.153/07 & 30/08 6 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008