IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 950 of 2004() ------------------------ CRRP.90/2001 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, (FAST TRACK I), PALAKKAD MC.2/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------- RAMAKRISHNAN S/O. SANKARAN, PULIKKAL VEEDU, VALLIKKADU, MANJALUR AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENT(S): 2ND PETITIONER: ------------------------------ 1. MOHANAN, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, KUNDIL VEEDU, PARALI DESOM, THENUR AMSOM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SRI.K.R.RAGHUNATH FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.950 of 2004 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 23rd January, 2008. O R D E R A petition was filed as M.C.2/1998 before the Magistrate Court by the wife of petitioner and his son claiming maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. The marriage was admitted but the paternity of the child was disputed. It is contended by petitioner that the son was aged 23 years and he is not entitled to maintenance from petitioner. It is also contended that first respondent-son is not blind, as alleged and therefore, he is not liable to maintain first respondent. 2. The trial court after analysing evidence ordered petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/- per month to the son, who is first respondent herein, having found that petitioner has sufficient income and he has neglected to maintain first respondent-son, who is unable to maintain himself, particularly because of the physical abnormality. The said order was challenged before the revisional court by the petitioner. But it was dismissed and order of the learned Magistrate was confirmed. Crl.M.C.No.950/2004 2 3. Heard. According to petitioner the court below went wrong in placing reliance upon testimony of a private physician, especially, since the blindness is disputed. Learned Magistrate accepted the evidence of PW2, who is a retired Opthalmic Surgeon and certificate issued by him which is marked as Ext.P2 to hold that first respondent-son is blind. 4. On going through the impugned judgment and the records, I find that reasons assigned by trial court as well as the revisional court to act upon medical evidence cannot be said to be perverse. Both the courts entered into the finding of the fact that first respondent-son is blind. The son had appeared before trial court and he is found to be blind. There is absolutely no reason to reject such observations which are supported by medical evidence. The courts below correctly relied upon medical evidence adduced in the case to hold that the first respondent-son is a blind person. I do not find any impropriety in the findings. 5. The other ground raised is that the petitioner has to maintain his other wife and 3 children but he is only a potter. Crl.M.C.No.950/2004 3 According to petitioner the fact was not considered by the court below while passing an order for maintenance. On going through the available materials, I find that it cannot be said that court has not considered other liabilities of petitioner. The order passed in favour of the first respondent is only to pay Rs.400/- per month as maintenance from the date of the petition. The petitioner is admittedly a potter and he cannot wriggle out of his liability to maintain his blind son who is unable to maintain himself by paying a bare minimum amount for his subsistence. The first respondent is unable to maintain himself because of his blindness and I do not find any ground to interfere. 6. It was also argued that the first respondent-son is major and he will not be entitled to claim maintenance, since he does not come within the purview of Section 125(1)(c) of Cr.P.C. Admittedly, first respondent is a major but it is established by cogent evidence that he is blind and he is unable to maintain himself. Those findings cannot be disturbed by this court, since those are founded on sound reasons. Therefore, even though Crl.M.C.No.950/2004 4 the first respondent is a major he is entitled to maintenance from his father as per Section 125(1)(c) of Cr.P.C. Petitioner disputed the paternity of his major son in the counter statement, but while he was examined in court he did not dispute the same. There is absolutely no ground to interfere with the order. The Crl.M.C. is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. dvs