Point of Law : When a party claims allowance of maintenance by filing a petition, party must get maintenance from date of petition onwards and same is sanction of law.

ORDER :

R.P.(FC) No.468/2019 is at the instance of the respondent in M.C.No.356/2016 on the file of the Family Court, Kottarakkara and he impugns order in the above M.C., dated 4.6.2019.

2. Whereas, R.P.(FC) No.307/2019 has been filed by the petitioners 1 to 3, challenging the same order, on the ground of inadequacy on the quantum of maintenance.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. I shall refer the parties in this petition as to their status before the Family Court, for easy discussion.

5. In this matter, the petitioners, who are alleged to be wife and children of respondent, filed petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the Family Court and thereby, claimed Rs.8,000/- to the first petitioner, Rs.7,000/- to the second petitioner and Rs.5,000/- to the third petitioner. The specific contention raised by the petitioners before the Family Court was that the petitioners had no means of maintenance and the respondent had been working abroad and he was earning Rs.90,000/-per month.

6. The respondent filed objection, alleging adulterous life on the part of the first petitioner and also denying paternity of the third minor petitioner. In the objection, nothing stated denying the job or income, as alleged by the petitioners.

7. The court below ventured the matter. The evidence consists of PW1, first the petitioner and Exts.P1 to P8(h).

8. Though chief affidavit is filed by the respondent, he was not cross examined and according to the learned counsel for the respondent, cross examination was stalled due to dilatory tactics played by the petitioners. She also would submit that, even though the income of the respondent was not denied in the objection, in the chief affidavit filed by the respondent, the income as asserted by the petitioners was denied with a specific assertion that the respondent had been getting an income of Rs.35,000/- alone.

9. In this matter, as per order in Crl.M.P.No.220/2018 filed by the respondent to conduct DNA test to ensure the paternity of the third petitioner, the Family Court ordered conduct of DNA test and finally, the DNA test result issued from Rajiv Gandhi National Centre for Biotechnology, Thiruvananthapuram, was obtained, finding that the respondent is the biological father of the third petitioner and the first petitioner as the biological mother of the third petitioner. In view of the said report, the said contention was found against him. Now, the said finding is not in dispute.

10. On a perusal of the evidence discussed by the learned Family Court Judge, it could be noticed that nothing substantiated to hold that the first petitioner is capable of maintaining herself, similar is the position as far as the other petitioners are concerned. It is true that the petition was filed on 21.12.2016 and the second minor petitioner attained majority on 23.7.2017. Noting this fact, the learned Family Court Judge denied maintenance to the second petitioner.

11. In this matter, the petitioners put up a consistent case through out the proceedings that the respondent had been working abroad and had been earning Rs.90,000/-per month. Though there is no specific denial in the objection filed by the respondent in the chief affidavit, which, in fact, could not be acted upon, for want of cross examination, he had denied his income as Rs.90,000/- and admitted the same to the tune of Rs.35,000/-.

12. The Family Court discussed the rival contentions, justifying grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.3,500/- to the third petitioner from the date of order, i.e., from 4.6.2019, as per the narration in Paragraph No.10 of the order impugned. The same is extracted hereunder for clarity :

10. According to the petitioners they had no sufficient means o maintain themselves and the respondent who is the husband of the 1st petitioner and the father of the other petitioners have means to pay maintenance to them and he is willfully neglecting to maintain them. The resp