IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 52 of 2004() --------------------- MC.324/2002 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- K.SAIDUMUHAMMED, S/O. ABDULLAH, 40 YEARS, KALATHIL HOUSE, VAKAD P.O., PARAVANNA. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. VAILISSERI SAFIYA D/O. AVARANKUTTY, 33 YEARS, TIRUR AMSOM, POOKAYIL DESOM P.O., POOKAYIL BAZAR. 2. MUSAIBA (MINOR 12 YEARS) (REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT) THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 52 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner in this revision petition assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the Family Court obliging the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.450/- p.m. to his child aged about 12 years and a student of standard VIII. The mother of the child has been divorced. Paternity is admitted. The petitioner, it is alleged, is a Madrasa teacher and was also working as coolie. The petitioner resisted the claim on the ground that at the time of divorce there was an agreement to pay an amount of Rs.50/- p.m. to the child, who is not entitled to claim anything more than the amount so agreed, it is contended. 2. Secondly it was contended that the petitioner has only employment as a Madrassa teacher and from such employment he gets only an amount of Rs.900/- p.m. Out of this he has to maintain his present wife and child as also his aged parents. In these circumstances it is contended that he is not in a position to R.P.F.C.No. 52 of 2004 2 pay Rs.1000/- as claimed. In the course of the proceedings he offered to pay an amount of Rs.350/- p.m. to the child. The mother of the child tendered evidence as PW1. The petitioner examined himself as CPW1. The learned Judge of the Family Court, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the offer made by the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.350/- as maintenance to the child cannot be accepted and considering the needs of the claimant and means of the petitioner an amount of Rs.450/- p.m. can justly be granted. Accordingly the impugned order is passed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The only contention raised before me is that at any rate the learned Judge should not have awarded any amount more than Rs.350/- which he had reasonably offered. 4. The learned Judge of the Family Court appears to have considered the question in detail. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the version of the petitioner about his means cannot reasonably be accepted. That assertion of his shows the nature of the R.P.F.C.No. 52 of 2004 3 person, it was observed. Going by the details given by the petitioner himself, he could not survive getting an amount of Rs.900/- p.m. There was also evidence to show that the petitioner had married thrice and had divorced twice. The court below felt that it will not be unreasonable to draw appropriate inferences from such conduct of the petitioner. In any view of the matter, the learned Judge of the Family Court realistically reckoned all the relevant circumstances and came to the conclusion that an amount of Rs.450/- can safely be granted. 5. That there was an agreement at the time of divorce to pay Rs.50/- p.m. is not conclusive or binding on the minor as an amount of Rs.50/- cannot obviously discharge the responsibility of the petitioner to pay maintenance to his 12 year old child. I am satisfied that the impugned order does not warrant revisional interference. 6. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm