Counter petitioner in MC.No.41/2012 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram is the revision petitioner herein. 2. The petition for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after called the Code) was filed by the respondent who is the minor daughter of the revision petitioner through her mother claiming enhanced maintenance under section 127 of the Code.
3. It is alleged in the petition that the revision petitioner married the mother of the child on 12.02.1998 and they were residing together as husband and wife and during their marital life the present petitioner was born on 06.06.1999. Thereafter, he neglected to maintain both the wife and child. Thereafter, earlier she filed M.C.No.237/2001 claiming maintenance and in that, compromise was entered into where the revision petitioner had agreed to pay `.600/- per month as maintenance to the child and on the basis of the compromise that petition was disposed of. Now, the child is studying in 6th standard and amount awarded is insufficient to meet the requirements of the child. So, considering the circumstances she wanted an enhancement of `.2500/- per month.
4. The revision petitioner appeared and filed counter stating that the earlier maintenance application was disposed of on the basis of compromise and he is paying the maintenance amount as per the compromise without default. He is a manual labourer and not conducting any bakery business as alleged and he is also suffering from several illnesses like diabetics, hyper tension and kidney stone etc. The mother of the child is also bound to maintain the child and certain extent of the property was also transferred as per the compromise on the assurance that she will maintain the child. So, she is not entitled to get any enhancement and he prayed for dismissal of the application.
5. No oral evidence adduced on either side. Ext.P1 was marked on the side of petitioner and Exts.D1 and D2 were marked on the side of the counter petitioner.
6. After considering the evidence, the learned family court enhanced the maintenance amount to `.2000/- inclusive of `.600/- being paid and this was ordered to be paid from the date of petition. This order is being challenged by the revision petitioner.
7. Considering the scope of enquiry, this court felt that the revision can be disposed of at the admission stage itself, after hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner alone dispensing with notice to the respondent.
8. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he is a coolie and he is not able to raise the amount and he is prepared to pay maintenance to the child at a reasonable rate and he is paying the maintenance as agreed as per the compromise in the earlier case and he is not able to pay the maintenance from the date of petition.
9. It is an admitted fact that the revision petitioner married the mother of the child and in the wedlock the respondent herein has born. It is also an admitted fact that since the mother and the child were residing separately and he had neglected to maintain the child she filed an application for maintenance as MC.No.237/2001 earlier through to her mother and that was compromised by which the maintenance payable to the child was quantified as `.600/- per month and on that basis the case was disposed of. Now the child is studying in 6th standard. She requires some more amount for her maintenance and the amount of `.600/- was fixed in the earlier proceedings will not be sufficient to meet the requirement of the child. The learned Family Court Judge though fixed the amount payable as maintenance as `.3000/- per month, that was apportioned between the mother and the revision petitioner in the ratio as `.1000/- and `.2000/- respectively and the present petitioner was directed to pay the maintenance @ `.2000/- including the amount of `.600/- already fixed in the earlier proceedings. So, only the additional liability over and above the maintenance being paid already will be only `.1400/- per month which cannot be said to be excessive. So, I don't find any reason to interfere with the quantum of maintenance fixed by the court below payable by the revision petitioner to the petitioner in the lower court.
9. As regards the other contention that the amount was directed to be paid from the date of petition namely, 16.02.2012 paid and no reason was stated and the same has to be directed to be paid from the date of order instead of date of petition. It may mention here that the petitioner is bound to maintain the child. His liability continues till she attains majority or she is capable of maintaining herself. So, under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the order passed by the court below directing the petitioner to pay the maintenance from the date of petition is illegal as well. So, under the circumstances, this court find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the court below as it is just and proper. But, however, considering the amount accumulated, this court feels that five months time can be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the arrears in equal monthly instalments and if any default is committed by the petitioner then the respondent is entitled to execute and get the amount and ordered accordingly.
With the above directions and observations, the revision petition is dismissed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.
sd/-
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE R.AV