CRR No. 1519 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRR No. 1519 of 2010 Date of decision: 24.05.2010 Amar Singh ........ Petitioner Versus Digamber .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Kartar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This revision petition has been filed against the judgement dated 20.04.2010 passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, vide which, the petitioner has been ordered to pay maintenance allowance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition till the date of attaining majority by the respondent. The respondent is a minor child of 6 years. He is the son of the petitioner. He is residing with his maternal grandmother. The mother of the respondent-minor child has since died due to cancer. The petitioner did not even attend the last rites of the mother of the minor. As a net result of the finding, the District judge, Family Court has granted Rs.4000/- per month as maintenance allowance to the respondent minor son of the petitioner. CRR No. 1519 of 2010 2 The petitioner is remarried and the only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is taking care of his family consisting his wife, three children, niece and old aged parents, is ready to keep the minor child and also to provide all basic amenities to him. It is further stated that he has filed petition for custody of the minor son. Hence, the question of maintenance does not arise. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard. It is the duty and obligation of the petitioner to look after his minor son respondent. It has come in evidence that the petitioner has, in fact, filed a petition seeking custody of the minor child. Admittedly, the aforesaid petition was filed by the petitioner after three years of the death of the mother of the minor. The mere filing of the petition for taking over the custody of the minor in itself cannot dis-entitle the minor child from getting the maintenance allowance. The petition for taking over the custody of the minor is still pending. Till the time, the petitioner is granted custody of the minor, he is bound to look after him (minor child), especially when there is no allegation that the minor child is not being looked after properly by the grand mother. As far as the second argument is concerned that the petitioner is a joint family consisting of his wife, two children and old aged parents, a finding is duly arrived at by the District Judge that the petitioner was a Government teacher and was earning Rs.21,000/- out of which Rs.8,000/- was being deducted towards General Provident Funds. The said deduction was a voluntary deduction. His agricultural income has been assessed as Rs.10,000/- per month. The respondent had successfully proved that the CRR No. 1519 of 2010 3 total income of the petitioner from all source is Rs.38,000/- per month. Taking into account that he has the responsibility towards other six family members, Rs.4,000/- per month was considered the least of the amount as per 1/7th share. Thus, the judgement dated 20.04.2010 passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad is just and fair. The respondent- minor child is of a growing age who not only required to maintain himself but also requires proper education. As such, Rs.4000/- towards maintenance allowance as granted by the District Judge, for a motherless child, is not on the higher side. No ground to interfere in the well reasoned judgement dated 20.04.2010 passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 24.05.2010 mohan