ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order 20.12.2022, passed in Crl.Misc.No.542/2019 whereby, the family Court declines to grant interim maintenance to the wife and the children.

2. Heard Sri P. Raveendran, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Sudhindra Bhat, learned counsel for respondent.

3. Brief facts that leads the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

The first petitioner is the wife, the respondent is her husband, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the children born from the wedlock. The first petitioner and the respondent get married on 29.10.2006. The first child is born on 26.09.2008 and the second on 13.05.2011. Relationship between the first petitioner and the respondent turned sour. It transpires that the first petitioner has instituted several proceedings against the husband. One such proceedings is, criminal miscellaneous petition invoking Section 125 (1) of Cr.P.C. in Crl.Misc.P.No.542/2019, seeking payment of maintenance to her and their children at Rs.75,000/- p.m. apart from educational expenses. The concerned Court in terms of the order impugned dated 20.12.2022, declines to grant any maintenance to the wife or their children but directs payment towards education expenses of the children inter alia. It is this order that drives the wife and children before this Court seeking maintenance to all the three of them, apart from what is ordered by the concerned Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend with vehemence that the concerned Court ought to have granted certain maintenance to the wife and children. It could not have altogether ignored that the wife is earning and seeks grant of maintenance to her and their children that was not granted by the concerned court.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent – husband would take this Court to the documents i.e., the assets and liabilities statement to contend that the husband is paying all the amount to the children as maintenance and the wife is doctor by profession, a physiotherapist consultant, who charges by the hour and submits that no maintenance need be awarded to any one of them as the wife has to take care of the children.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue that drives the petitioners to this Court is the order passed on 20.12.2022. The concerned Court after considering the assets and liabilities has passed the following order:

“ORDER IA No.2 filed by the petitioner under Sec.125(1)(2) of Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed. The respondent is hereby directed to continue to make payments towards the entire education expenses of the children, rentals, maintenance, electricity and water charges of the accommodation which is occupied by the petitioners till the disposal of this petition.”

(Emphasis added)

No fault can be found with the order insofar as non-grant of the maintenance to the wife is concerned. As the wife is a doctor by profession and a physiotherapist, who runs a clinic and earns on her own. It is not the law that wife seeks maintenance and it should be granted dehors in the facts obtaining in the given case. The wife is capable of earning and she is said to be earning Rs.1/- lakh p.m. and she would not need any maintenance from the husband to live. But the same cannot be the reason for non-grant of maintenance to the children.

8. The children are admittedly born from the wedlock of the first petitioner and the respondent, they are therefore, their children. It is the duty of the father to maintain the children. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent – husband that there is no need of maintenance to be granted to the children except the school expenses, is unacceptable. The children would definitely be in need of certain amount to fulfill their need month on month ba