IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 RPFC.No. 246 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.200/2007 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- KISHORE, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.NAGAPPA, R/AT NEKHLI HOUSE, KERAMOOLA, MYLATTY.P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ----------------------- 1. SUMITHRA @ PUSHPA, AGED 34, D/O.MANJUNATHA, R/AT KOROTH, PANAYAL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. SANTKEERTHANA, AGED 11, S/O.KISHORE, D0...... DO...... DO......(MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER, 1ST RESPONDENT) BY THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 246 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2008 ORDER The petitioner has preferred this revision petition to assail an order directing him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensem to his daughter. 2. The claim was made on behalf of the wife of the petitioner as well as the child. The wife's claim for maintenance stands rejected. The wife has not so far preferred a revision petition against that part of the order rejecting her claim for maintenance. Paternity is admitted. 3. What then is the contention? The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the claimant/mother had suffered an order directing her to resume cohabitation with the petitioner along with the child. That order has not been obeyed by the wife. If the child were R.P.(FC) No. 246 of 2008 -: 2 :- directed to be paid maintenance before she obeys the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, that would an unjust direction. This is the only plea raised. 4. I am afraid, the said plea cannot be accepted in law. Wherever the child is , the father is bound to pay maintenance to the child. Of course, his option to claim custody of the child for him from the custody of the mother who is unwilling to obey the decree for restitution of conjugal rights may remain. But until then, he is bound to pay maintenance of the child whosoever be in custody of the child. The contention raised cannot, in these circumstances, be accepted. No other contention is raised. 5. This RP(FC) is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ R.P.(FC) No. 246 of 2008 -: 3 :-