SAJU VARGHESE YESUDASAN Vs. NAVEEN VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent, a boy aged 13 years, filed a petition as MC No. 351 of 2006 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court, Ernakulam seeking an order granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,30,000/- per month. THE respondent was represented by his mother. It was pleaded that the marital relationship between the revision petitioner and the mother of the respondent was dissolved and thereafter the respondent has been residing with the mother and as on the date of the petition, the respondent was studying in 8th standard in a reputed school in Australia and that the expenses towards educational fee, living, clothing etc. would come upto 2,500 Australian dollars, which is equivalent to Rs.85,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that the revision petitioner, who is the Chief Executive Officer in a company based at Dubai is having a monthly income of Rs.20,00,000/-.

(2.) THE revision petitioner did not dispute the status. But, inter alia contended that at the time when the divorce was effected, all financial matters were settled and that there was lumpsum payment and adjustment of properties after taking into account of the expenditure for the maintenance of the respondent and that as on that date, the respondent was studying in Lecole Chempaka in Thiruvananthapuram and the annual school fee was Rs.4,500/- only and that the respondent is not entitled to claim maintenance for the education and other expenses in a western country and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

(3.) IT is crucial to note that the revision petitioner had not raised the question of jurisdiction before the Trial Court. So, for that reason itself, that argument deserves no consideration in revision. Adding to that, the revision petitioner, without any demur, faced the enquiry before the Trial Court and after having obtained an order against him, it is not open for him to raise the question of jurisdiction in the revision petition, especially, when there is no case that any prejudice was caused to the revision petitioner. If there is dispute regarding jurisdiction, it should have been raised in the Trial Court. Without raising such dispute in Trial Court, it could not be raised for the first time in revision. So, that contention deserves no consideration.