Sreenath Thulasidas vs Sethulakshmi Harinarayanan
2023 Latest Caselaw 10523 Ker

                                   -
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
     MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 24TH ASWINA, 1945
                      CRL.REV.PET NO. 720 OF 2023
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT APPEAL NO 373/2022 OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - II, NORTH PARAVUR / I ADDITIONAL
                          MACT, NORTH PARAVUR
   MC 48/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, NORTH
                                PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:

          SREENATH THULASIDAS
          AGED 36 YEARS
          ACHUTHAM THACHETH HOUSE,EOOR FERRY ROAD,
          UDYOGAMANDAL,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683501
          BY ADV SREENATH THULASIDAS(Party-In-Person)


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     SETHULAKSHMI HARINARAYANAN, AGED 34 YEARS
          KAMAL HOUSE KOTTARAPATTU LANE, NEAR N PARAVUR TOWN
          HALL, N PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513
    2     STATE OF KERALA
          PUBLIC PROSECUTER,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
          BY ADVS.
          Bhama G Nair
          APARNA NAIR(K/871/2021)




          SRI NOUSHAD K.A. (SR PP)


     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.REV.PET NO. 720 OF 2023       2



                                ORDER

Petitioner is the 1st respondent in M.C. No.48/2018 on the file

of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, North Paravur. The

said petition was filed by the 1 st respondent/wife under Section 12

of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. By

order dated, 07.10.2022, the Magistrate Court disposed of M.C.

No.48/2018 in part, by directing the revision petitioner (the 1 st

respondent in the M.C) to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five

thousand only) per month to the minor child from the date of the

order, that is, on 07.10.2022. Being aggrieved by the order of the

learned Magistrate in M.C. No.48/2018, the revision petitioner

preferred an appeal before the District Court, North Paravur, which

is numbered as Crl.Appeal No.373/2022 . The District Court, by

Annexure A2 order dated 14.02.2023, dismissed the appeal,

essentially finding that the order of the learned Magistrate was

reasonable and no interference is called for in exercise of the

appellate jurisdiction vested in the District Court. The revision

petitioner has therefore, filed this Revision Petition under Section

397 r/w.401 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The revision petitioner appears in person. It is his primary

contention that going by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in

various judgments, the responsibility of bringing up a child is not

to be foisted on the father alone and the mother is also equally

responsible for sharing the expenses for bringing up a child. It is

submitted that while claiming maintenance, the respondent/wife

had stated that her salary was only Rs.12,000/- while in the

proceedings under the Guardian and Wards Act, she had stated

that her salary was Rs.35,000/- . It is submitted that, a person ,who

gives contradictory statements in two different proceedings must

be found to have come to the court with unclean hands and that by

itself is a ground to refuse the maintenance. It is submitted that

the petitioner, though qualified, is presently unemployed and is not

in a position to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per

month.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent

vehemently opposes the revision petition. It is submitted that even

if the contention of the petitioner is accepted, it can be seen that

the Magistrate court has granted only a very reasonable amount as

maintenance for the child. It is submitted that, even according to

the revision petitioner, an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month is to be

paid as school fee for the education of the child, who is six years

old and considering the other expenses involved in bringing up the

child, including the expenses for food, clothing travel etc, the

amount of Rs.5,000/- would be hardly sufficient for bringing up a

child. Attention of this Court is drawn to the finding of the District

court in the order dated 14.02.2023 in Crl.Appeal No.373/2022,

where the District court has come to the conclusion that the

amount of Rs.5,000/- is hardly sufficient to bring up a six year old

child. It is submitted that the 1 st respondent/mother is contributing

a substantial portion of her income towards maintenance and

upbringing of the child. It is submitted that, even if the the

education expenses of the child were excluded, the order passed by

the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the appellate court is not

liable to be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

4. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

5. Having heard the petitioner in person, the learned

counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Public

Prosecutor, I am of the opinion that no grounds have been made for

exercise of revisional jurisdiction vested in this Court. The primary

contention of the petitioner is that he is not earning and he is not in

a position to pay Rs.5,000/-. The contention of the petitioner, who

appears in person is that, the mother, who is also earning is liable

to contribute for the maintenance of the child and the entire

expenses cannot be foisted on the father. A reading of the order of

the Magistrate court and the District court clearly indicate that

both the courts were alive to the fact that the amount of Rs.5,000/-

will be hardly sufficient to maintain a six year old child, who is

admittedly, a school student. Therefore, I find no justification for

interference with the orders passed by the Magistrate court and as

confirmed by the appellate court in exercise of revisional

jurisdiction. Even if the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.5,000/- , the

respondent/wife will have to bear a substantial amount towards

the upbringing of the child. In other words, Rs.5000/- is hardly

sufficient to meet the expenses of bringing up a school going child,

aged 6. Therefore, the acceptance of the contention taken by the

petitioner that the respondent/wife must also bear portion of the

expenses does not lead to the finding that the order of the

Magistrate Court and the Appellate Court must be set aside. That

apart, I must also note from the order of the Magistrate Court that

no amount has been awarded as maintenance for the wife and that

the petitioner has not objected to payment of maintenance for the

child. Since the petitioner had not even objected to the payment of

maintenance for the child, the decision relied on have no

application for all practical purposes. The Revision Petition is

therefore, dismissed.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE ajt

APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 720/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS ANNEXURE A1 ORDER OF THE HON'BLE JFCM -I DATED 07.10.2022 IN M.C. NO.48/2018 ANNEXURE A3 JUDGEMNT OF THE HON'BLE DISTRICT COURT DATED 14.02.2023 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.373/2022 Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN APPEAL (CIVIL) 2462 OF 1999 PADMJA SHARMA VS RATAN LAL SHARMA Annexure A4 TRUE COPIES OF BILLS OF MATERIALS OFFERED BY THE REVISION PETITIONER