IMPORTANT POINT
After arriving at a sum as maintenance, the Family Court ought not to have issued a direction to keep a portion of the same in recurring deposit to be used for the future prospects of the child on his attainment of age of majority. As meant under Section 3(b) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, with the amount ordered as maintenance, the present needs of the child are to be meted out. By directing to keep the same in deposit the object underlying Section 125 Cr.P.C. will not be fulfilled.

ORDER :

Revision on hand is preferred by the respondent aggrieved by the order passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam on 04.09.2019 in M.C.No.47 of 2019, directing him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- to the minor child born to him in his marital life with Smt. Anjana Gopinath. Petition seeking maintenance was filed before Family Court, Ernakulam under Section 125 Cr.P.C and being minor at the relevant time, the child was represented in the petition by his mother, Smt. Anjana Gopinath as his next friend.

2. The parties for convenience will be referred to hereinafter as the petitioners and the respondent. Shorn off unnecessary matters, the facts relevant for disposal of this revision are stated hereunder.

3. The respondent married Smt. Anjana Gopinath on 27.01.2010 and a child was born on 24.06.2012. Within a short time after the marriage, Smt. Anjana was subjected to ill-treatment by the respondent and in-laws, physically as well as mentally. The child was neglected by the respondent and did not care to maintain him from 25.12.2013. The respondent was working as Senior Specialist, Mavenir Systems GMBH at Germany and was earning Rs.5,00,000/-per month. Seeking Rs.25,000/- as maintenance from the respondent M.C. was preferred. Original Petitions seeking for dissolution of marriage and return of money were also preferred in the meantime.

4. In the counter statement filed in the M.C., all allegations raised against him except his status were denied. It was contended that Smt.Anjana Gopinath alongwith the child left the company of the respondent without any valid and justifiable reason and all efforts to bring them back, turned futile. Therefore, he was constrained to file an application seeking dissolution of marriage and as a counterblast the M.C was filed. Smt. Anjana Gopinath was working at the relevant time as Manager in UCO Bank and had a monthly income of Rs.1,00,000/-. The desertion of the mother and child caused mental trauma to the respondent and consequently to several physical ailments. He was constrained to take leave for six months. His salary at the relevant time was only Rs.1,25,000/- and out of that, his house rent, tax, compulsory social security and health insurance were met with. He has to meet expenses of his livelihood, which is high in Germany. He has to repay the house loan arrears also. According to him, the child being a minor does not require a huge sum of Rs.25,000/- as maintenance. According to him, the interim maintenance ordered by the Family Court was interfered with by this Court and was reduced to Rs.5,000/- monthly when a challenge was raised against, vide O.P(Crl.) No.183 of 2019.

5. Smt.Anjana Gopinath tendered oral evidence in the M.C as PW1 and the respondent as DW2. The Power of Attorney Holder of the respondent was also examined as DW1. Exts.P1 to P9 and D1 to D3 were also marked by the respective parties.

6. On appreciation of the above evidence the Family Court found the child entitled to live in the same status in which the respondent was at the relevant time and accordingly directed the respondent to pay Rs.25,000/- as maintenance to him from the date of the petition. The Family Court had also gone to the extent of ordering:

“PW1 is permitted to take only Rs.10,000/-per month and the balance Rs.15,000/- shall be deposited in a recurring deposit with any nationalized bank with she as the nominee. Interim maintenance paid will be adjusted towards the maintenance due. Pw1 is directed to open an account forthwith and intimate the respondent and file memo.”

7. The respondent was highly prejudiced by the exorbitant sum directed to be paid by him as maintenance and accordingly filed the revision on hand calling for interference.

8. Smt. Sumathy Dandapani, the learned Senior Counsel has urged at the outset that the Family court is highly erred in ordering an exorbitant sum of Rs.25,000/- as maintenance and directing Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the mother of the minor child and Rs.15,000/- to b