A father is expected to maintain his child irrespective of his earnings, and the wife can pursue civil proceedings to claim maintenance.

Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgement dated 27. 2005 passed by the Family Court, Coimbatore, in M.C.No.58 of 2004. Challenging and impugning the judgement dated 27. 2005 passed by the Family Court, Coimbatore, in M.C.No.58 of 2004 this criminal revision case is focussed.

2. Compendiously and concisely, the facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this case would run thus:-

(a) The revision petitioners herein filed the M.C.No.58 of 2004 before the Family Court, Coimbatore, as against the respondent seeking maintenance. The respondent resisted the petition.

(b) In fact, the Family Court did choose to conduct joint trial/enquiry relating to three matters (i) M.C.No.58 of 2004, which was filed by the revision petitioners herein seeking maintenance, (ii) H.M.O.P.No.429 of 1998 filed by the husband for divorce as against the wife-the first petitioner herein and (iii) O.S.No.14 of 1998-the partition suit filed by the husband as against the wife.

(c) I would like to observe that the Family Court could have done well by separately conducting the enquiry under Section 125 Cr.P.C. relating to the M.C.No.58 of 2004 is concerned.

(d) Be that as it may, in his wisdom the learned Judge thought fit to conduct joint trial/enquiry of all the three matters and rendered common judgement. The M.C. filed by the revision petitioners herein was dismissed.

.3. Being disconcerted and dissatisfied with the judgement of the Family Court, this revision has been filed on various grounds, the gist and kernal of them would run thus:

.The Family Court failed to take into consideration the responsibility of the respondent herein to maintain his wife and child. The Family Court, after giving a finding in favour of the revision petitioners on certain aspects simply refrained from awarding maintenance on untenable grounds.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or non-application of law in dismissing the claim of the revision petitioners herein for maintenance as against the respondent herein.

.6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners, by way of reiterating the grounds of revision would set forth and put forth his argument to the effect that the Family Court gave a categorical finding to the effect that the respondent is living in adultery and he gave birth to an illegitimate child also and in the meanwhile, the lower Court also held that the allegation as against the wife, namely, the first revision petitioner herein that she has been living in adultery, has not been proved. In such a case, instead of awarding maintenance in favour of the revision petitioners, the Family Court simply observed that the revision petitioners should somehow or other meet their requirements from and out of the half share of immovable property allotted in favour of the first revision petitioner, in the suit O.S.No.14 of 1998.

7. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent, by way of torpedoing and pulverising the arguments as put forth on the side of the revision petitioners, would advance and develop his argument to the effect that when the wife is affluent and capable of maintaining herself and the child, she is not justified in seeking maintenance as against the respondent herein for herself and the child. According to the revision petitioners, the respondent was a nonentity and that he was provided with some assistance by her, so as to eke out his living.

8. A plain reading of the judgement of the lower Court would at once display and evince that there is a categorical finding to the effect that the husband, so to say, the respondent herein, is living in adultery and he gave birth to a child also and that the accusation as against the first petitioner herein, that she is living in adultery was not proved. The Family Court also recognised the basic right on the part of the revision petitioners to claim maintenance. However, it simp