RAVINDRANATH SRIHARI KUTHURU Vs. MASTER JAGAT SURYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the father of the respondent, is before this Court against the order dated 1st July, 2015 passed in C.Misc. 131/2015 by the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru awarding the monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/-per month from the date of the petition till the child (his son) attains majority which includes education expenses of the child. He was also directed to pay all the arrears within two months and also the future maintenance regularly without fail.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner herein that the respondent-his son had filed a petition under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the family Court through his mother against him, praying to direct him to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.25,00/- including his educational expenses to him until he attains majority etc., contending that the respondent and his mother are husband and wife having married as per the Hindu rites and customs on 20.3.2011 at Swagath Function Hall, Vasavi Colony, R. K. Puram, Hyderabad, Telangana. He was bom on 18.3.2012 at Aruna Hospital, Hyderbad, Telangana. He is the biological son of the petitioner and he has been deserted and neglected by him since 10.10.2013. The petitioner herein is currently employed as Manager in MICE Sales, Thomas Cook India Ltd., M.G. Road, Bengaluru and getting the salary of Rs.65,000/- per month. The petitioner has the capacity to main-tain the minor respondent herein, but he has refused to maintain him except paying paltry sum of Rs. 10,000/- in the month of December, 2014 and he has not made any payment. The respondent herein requires at least Rs.25,000/- per month for his maintenance himself and his mother-wife of the petitioner herein, who is now maintaining him. Her salary is insufficient to meet the same. His mother is paying EMIs of Rs.33,717/- to the HDFC Housing Ltd., Bengaluru towards home loan which stands jointly in her name and in the name of the petitioner in respect of the loan taken by them for purchase of the house at Bengaluru, etc.

(3.) In spite of service of notice, the present petitioner herein/father, who is respondent before the Family Court did not appear and hence, he was placed ex parte.