A father is liable to pay maintenance to his minor child, even if the child is in the custody of the mother, if he has neglected to maintain the child and has the means to do so.

ORDER :

The Criminal Revision Case is filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is the respondent in M.C.No.199 of 2007, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, under Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code („Cr.P.C.? for short), impugning the order, dated 29.04.2009, where under the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, allowed the maintenance case filed by the second respondent herein in the capacity of the petitioner therein, ordering the petitioner herein to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner, who is his daughter. So, the second respondent is no other than the daughter of the petitioner, who filed M.C.No.199 of 2007, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam.

2. The brief case of the petitioner in the M.C.No.199 of 2007, according to the averments in the petition before the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, is as follows:

(i) The marriage between the mother of the petitioner and the respondent took place on 25.11.1992 at Sivalayam Temple, I-Town, Visakhapatnam, in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. Their marriage was a love marriage and it was consummated. During the wedlock, the petitioner was born to her mother and the respondent on 24.03.1997. In fact, the mother of the petitioner joined with the respondent in the matrimonial home with all hopes. Her dreams were shattered due to illegal acts of the respondent. He developed in the absence of the petitioner’s mother illicit contact with another lady. The mother of the petitioner questioned the same. The respondent promised not to do such acts in future. Since the date of marriage, the respondent used to harass the mother of the petitioner for silly reasons. He used to collect the salary from the petitioner’s mother and used to run the family with the income derived on tuitions. The petitioner’s mother suffered both physically and mentally in the hands of the respondent. Subsequent to the birth of the petitioner, the respondent neglected the petitioner and her mother. On 24.04.2006 the respondent necked out the petitioner and her mother in the matrimonial house and threatened them with dire consequences. The petitioner is depending on the mercy of her mother. She is not having any source of income to maintain herself. The respondent is working in Visakha Vimal Vidyalayam and getting monthly income of Rs.12,000/- and he is also having landed properties at Srikakulam and getting Rs.1 lakh. The respondent completely neglected the petitioner and is not looking after her welfare. Hence, the petition.

3. The respondent in the M.C.No.199 of 2007, who is the Revision Petitioner herein, got filed a counter before the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, denying the case of the petitioner, but, admitted the relationship between the petitioner and him. His contention in brief is that he never refused or neglected to maintain the petitioner and her mother at any point of time. Mother of the petitioner on her own accord without informing the respondent left the company of the respondent along with the petitioner. He spent all his earnings and savings to meet the luxurious needs of the mother of the petitioner. The respondent is getting Rs.10,000/- per month and he is compelled to pay thousands of rupees towards interest to his creditor on the amounts borrowed earlier to meet the demands of the petitioner’s mother. He has to look after his old aged ailing father and he sought dismissal of the petition.

4. Before the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, the mother of the petitioner also filed O.P.No.760 of 2007 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, with a prayer to dissolve the marriage between her and the respondent. The learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, clubbed the M.C.No.199 of 2007 and O.P.No.760 of 2007 and recorded the evidence in common and disposed both the matters by a common order, dated 29.04.2009. So, in such a course, the evidence available on behalf of the petitioner in