KAWDOO Vs. GUNWANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT Kawdoo, the father of minor non applicant No. 1 Gunwanta has challenged the order of grant of maintenance by the trial Court in favour of non -applicant No. 1 and confirmed by the Sessions Court in revision.

(2.) THE application was made before the trial Court by mother of the non - applicant No. 1 Manda for herself and also for the non -applicant No. 1 Gunwanta. The trial Court after recording the evidence, granted maintenance of Rs. 100 per month to the non -applicant No. 1 minor. A separate maintenance of Rs. 150 P. M. was also granted to Manda the mother of non -applicant No. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the grant of maintenance, the applicant filed a Criminal Revision bearing No. 51 of 1984 before the Sessions Court, Wardha. Similarly, Manda also filed an application on behalf of the non - applicant No. 1 for enhancement of the amount of maintenance. By a common order, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed both the revisions. The present application filed by Kawdoo tender Section 48; Cr. P. C.

(3.) SMT . Sirpurkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, has submitted that the father had applied to the District Court on 31st March,s 1982 for custody of the minor child. According to her, the said application is still pending for decision. On the basis of these facts, the grievance of Smt. Sirpurkar is that by filing an application in 1982, applicant Kawdoo was exhibited his intention to maintain the minor child. The application for maintenance on behalf of Gunwanta was filed in the year 1984. It was therefore, submitted that the father candidly and explicitly demonstrated his desire to have the custody and to maintain the child. Therefore, it cannot be said that he neglected to maintain the child. It is on this proposition she has urged that the grant of maintenance, assuming neglect on the part of father, is incorrect. The second submission of Smt. Sirpurkar is that the applicant is earning only Rs. 750 p. m. out of which he has to maintain his parents and also pay Rs. 200 p. m. to Manda and therefore, the quantum of Rs. 100 p. m. towards maintenance is excessive and disproportionate.