JUDGMENT :

Jyothi Mulimani, J.

1. Sri K. Srinivasa, learned Counsel for petitioner has appeared in-person.

2. The revision petition is posted for admission after notice to respondents.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Family Court.

4. The order dated 21.7.2016, passed by the Family Court, Shivamogga in Crl. Misc. No. 238/2013 is called in question in this revision petition, whereby, learned Judge has directed respondent to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month towards monthly maintenance to petitioner No. 2-minor son. It is this order which is called in question on various grounds as set out in the revision petition.

5. Sri K. Srinivasa, learned Counsel submits that the order of the Family Court suffers from serious infirmities and the same is liable to be set aside. He submits that the Family Court has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record.

Next, he submitted that petitioner No. 2 is just aged 4 years, and hence, award of maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month is highly arbitrary and unreasonable.

A further submission was made that respondent is working as a Lecturer in Private College. In reality, he was drawing a salary of Rs. 15,463/- per month.

The order for payment of Rs. 7,000/- per month is on the misconception that respondent was drawing a salary of Rs. 46,390/- per month. Counsel submitted that respondent had received a consolidated salary of Rs. 46,390/- for the period of three months from April 2013 to June 2013. It has been contended that learned Judge has totally erred in directing for payment of Rs. 7,000/- per month which is almost half of the salary being drawn by respondent. Hence, it was sought to contend that learned Judge has not properly appreciated the facts.

Lastly, he contended that learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its right perspective and the entire order is based on mere assumption and presumption. Hence, order is illegal and contrary to the law and prays that this revision petition may be allowed.

6. In the last resort, learned Counsel argued that at present, respondent is unemployed due to Covid-19 Pandemic. Therefore, Counsel submitted that respondent is not in a position to pay maintenance to petitioner No. 2 as ordered by the Family Court.

7. I have heard the contentions urged on behalf of respondent and perused the record with care.

8. The real question involved to be determined is whether the Family Court justified in directing respondent to pay maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month to his minor son?

9. It is not in dispute that first petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 2.10.2011 in Wesley Church, Tumkur, as per the customs and traditions prevailing in their community. They are blessed with a son. They lived blissfully for some time. Due to differences of opinion, petitioner No. 1 was constrained to live apart from her husband. Contending that her husband is having sufficient means, willfully neglected and refused to maintain her and minor child, she sought the aid of the Court for maintenance.

10. Learned Judge in extenso referred to the evidence on record and found that respondent has willfully neglected and refused to pay maintenance to his minor son.

It is relevant to note that learned Judge partly allowed the petition and found that petitioner No. 1 is a graduate in Bachelor of Science and is capable of maintaining herself and accordingly, rejected her claim. Insofar as minor son is concerned, learned Judge directed respondent to pay monthly maintenance off 7,000/- from the date of petition. It is this order which is challenged by respondent.

11. To substantiate the claim, petitioner No. 1 examined herself as P.W. 1 and has produced several documents, in particular, salary certificate of respondent to show that he is earning sufficiently.

On the contrary, respondent contended that petitioner No. 1 has voluntarily deserted