VIGNESH Vs. K NAMASIVAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A resume of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these revision petitions would run thus:-Minor Vignesh represented by his mother and natural guardian Bhuvaneswari, filed M.C.No.588 of 2004 seeking maintenance as against his father in a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., whereupon the respondent entered appearance and resisted the claim. During enquiry, on the side of the petitioner, her mother was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P.5 were marked. On the side of the respondent, he examined himself as R.W.1 and Exs.R1 to R.6 documents were marked. Ultimately, the family Court fixed the maintenance requirement of minor Vignesh in a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month and apportioned it in the ratio of 2:1 and accordingly, the Family Court opined that the mother of minor Vignesh should bear 2/3rd of the maintenance and 1/3rd shall be borne by the father.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Family Court, minor Vignesh and his father Namasivayam preferred these rival revision petitions as against each other.

(3.) HEARD both sides6. The point for consideration is as to whether there is perversity or non application of appropriate law in scrutinizing the evidence and in passing such an order of maintenance by the lower Court.7. The learned counsel appearing on either side would reiterate their respective stands as found exemplified in the revision petitions.8. The learned counsel for the minor Vignesh would develop his argument to the effect that under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. the question of mother being made to bear the brunt of paying the maintenance does not arise at all it is the primary responsibility of the father to provide maintenance to the minor child, whether the minor child is with the mother or with the father. Accordingly, he sought for modification of the order passed by the Family Court.9. Whereas the learned counsel for Namasivayam, the father of the minor Vignesh would submit his argument to the effect that the said Namasivayam gave his consent to Bhuvaneswari, mother of Vignesh to claim medical expenses as well as educational allowance from the Central Government, her employer, in order to meet the medical and educational requirements of the minor Vignesh and accordingly if viewed the formula 2:1 arrived at by the Family Court cannot be found fault with. Over and above that, the learned counsel would submit that the mother of Vignesh namely Bhuvaneswari has arranged her living in such a manner that now she is not even residing in any rented premises but in her brother's premises and thereby she enhanced her emoluments by Rs.6000 p.m. more than her earlier emoluments of Rs.22000/- p.m. as found set out in the order of the Family Court.10. Indubitably and indisputably at present there is no relationship between Namasivayam and Bhuvaneswari as husband and wife in view of divorce decree having been already passed by the competent Court. Minor Vignesh is in the custody of Bhuvaneswari. The Family Court assessed the monthly maintenance of minor Vignesh in a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month, which in my opinion is a moderate sum. Minor Vignesh being the child of a Central Government employee (mother) who is working as Deputy Manager and an Electricity Board employee (father) who is working as Auditor, is entitled to live in commensurate with their status. Accordingly viewed, without going into various details, the Court can very well taking into consideration the present day cost of living, give its firm finding that awarding of a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance for the minor child Vignesh, by the Family Court, cannot be found fault with.11. The question arises as to what extent Namasivayam and Bhuvaneswari should respectively be made to bear the brunt of maintaining the child. As has been pointed out by the Family Court, in the wake of the evidence available before it, the father, at the relevant point of time was earning a sum of Rs.46,773/- p.m. and Bhuvaneswari, the mother of the child was earning a sum of Rs.22,016/-p.m. However the family Court directed Namasivyam to pay only a sum of Rs.1600/- p.m. out of the assessed quantum of Rs.5,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the child. In my opinion such apportionment is ex-facie and prima facie wrong. The difference between the salaries of Bhuvaneswari and Namasivayam, is only Rs.6,000/- and in such a case, it should have been made to reflect in apportioning the responsibility of maintaining the child cutting across technicalities and without adhering to functionalism of legal procedures and formalities as it is expected to be done in matters of this nature. Broadly, it can be assessed that Namasivayam in commensurate with his salary, should bear the responsibility of maintaining the child per month to the extent of Rs.2,200/- and Bhuvaneswari should bear the responsibility of maintaining the child to the extent of Rs.2,800/- per month and that would meet the ends of justice. ]Accordingly, the order of the Family Court shall stand modified. The revision petitions are disposed of accordingly.