IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RPFC.No. 328 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.163/2006 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- HAMSA, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O ANDU, R/AT HADDAD NIVAS, BEKAL IN PALLIKKARA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- RAMSEENA, AGED 12 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN, GRANDFATHER PALLIPUZHA ABOOBACKER, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O FASARUDDIN, R/AT MUTTUMTHALA, KOLAVAYAL P.O., AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD. ADV. SRI.M.THAMBAN SMT.T.SUDHAMANI THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.F.C.No. 328 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner in this revision petition assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. to the claimant, his minor child aged about 12 years. 2. Paternity is admitted. The petitioner had divorced the mother of the child. The mother of the child has remarried and is living with her new husband. The child was entrusted to the custody of the maternal grand mother as per an agreement between the parties. In that agreement there is a stipulation that an amount of Rs.300/- p.m. shall be paid by the petitioner to the claimant child. That agreement was entered into on 4.7.2005. 3. The claimant child has now come before court through her grand father. The agreement dt. 4.7.05 is not seriously disputed. But there is a contention that there has not been consistent and regular payment of even those amounts and that at R.P.F.C.No. 328 of 2007 2 any rate payment of the pittance of Rs.300/- is not sufficient discharge of the liability to maintain the child. It was contended that the grand father of the child is inimically disposed to the petitioner and there are some litigations between them. While the claimant asserted that the petitioner is a businessman earning more than Rs.25,000/- p.m., the petitioner contended that he is jobless. At any rate, he agreed to pay the said amount of Rs.300/- which was agreed upon as per the agreement between the spouses at the time of divorce. 4. The grand father of the claimant was examined as PW1 and the petitioner examined himself as RW1. Exts.B1 to B5 series were marked. Ext.B1 is the agreement dt. 4.7.05. Exts.B2 to B5 are only documents to show that the amounts due under the agreement dt.4.7.05 used to be sent. Some of them were accepted, but some of them were not accepted. 5. The learned Judge of the Family Court, in these circumstances, came to the conclusion that though the agreement is proved, that agreement or the payments under that agreement are not sufficient to conclude that there has been no neglect or refusal to R.P.F.C.No. 328 of 2007 3 maintain the child. I will accept and assume that an amount of Rs.300/- has been paid consistently as per the agreement between the parties. The claim was staked by the grand father on behalf of the child, who was in his custody, on 25.8.2006 after a lapse of a period of about a year from the date of the agreement dt.4.7.05. There is no serious dispute raised that the child is residing with its grand father though in the agreement the grand mother was assigned the responsibility of keeping custody of the child. 6. Viewed from any angle, I am not persuaded to agree that the court below committed any error, which can justify or warrant the invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. I am in complete agreement that the amount of Rs.300/- p.m. fixed as per the agreement dt. 4.7.05, even if paid faithfully, is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the father/petitioner has not refused or neglected to maintain the child. The amount of Rs.300/- p.m. fixed under the agreement dt.4.7.05 is perversely inadequate to meet the requirements of the child. R.P.F.C.No. 328 of 2007 4 7. There is a dispute about the nature of employment and income of the petitioner. I reckon the petitioner as just an able bodied person. There is nothing to show that he is not one. The amount of Rs.1,000/- p.m. is eminently reasonable and justified even reckoning the petitioner as just an able bodied person. I am not satisfied that the impugned order deserves any interference. 8. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, amounts, if any, lying in deposit shall forthwith be released to the claimant. (R. BASANT) Judge tm