Maintenance obligations for a child are shared by both parents, ensuring the child's welfare is prioritized over individual financial difficulties.

ORDER

Petitioner is the 1^st respondent in M.C. No.48/2018 on the of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, North Paravur. The said petition was filed by the 1st respondent/wife under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act , 2005. By order dated, 07.10.2022, the Magistrate Court disposed of M.C. No.48/2018 in part, by directing the revision petitioner (the 1^st respondent in the M.C) to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) per month to the minor child from the date of the order, that is, on 07.10.2022. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate in M.C. No.48/2018, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Court, North Paravur, which is numbered as Crl.Appeal No.373/2022 . The District Court, by Annexure A2 order dated 14.02.2023, dismissed the appeal, essentially finding that the order of the learned Magistrate was reasonable and no interference is called for in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction vested in the District Court. The revision petitioner has therefore, filed this Revision Petition under Section

397 r/w.401 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The revision petitioner appears in person. It is his primary contention that going by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgments, the responsibility of bringing up a child is not to be foisted on the father alone and the mother is also equally responsible for sharing the expenses for bringing up a child. It is submitted that while claiming maintenance, the respondent/wife had stated that her salary was only Rs.12,000/- while in the proceedings under the Guardian and Wards Act, she had stated that her salary was Rs.35,000/- . It is submitted that, a person ,who gives contradictory statements in two different proceedings must be found to have come to the court with unclean hands and that by itself is a ground to refuse the maintenance. It is submitted that the petitioner, though qualified, is presently unemployed and is not in a position to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent vehemently opposes the revision petition. It is submitted that even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted, it can be seen that the Magistrate court has granted only a very reasonable amount as maintenance for the child. It is submitted that, even according to the revision petitioner, an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month is to be paid as school fee for the education of the child, who is six years old and considering the other expenses involved in bringing up the child, including the expenses for food, clothing travel etc, the amount of Rs.5,000/- would be hardly sufficient for bringing up a child. Attention of this Court is drawn to the finding of the District court in the order dated 14.02.2023 in Crl.Appeal No.373/2022, where the District court has come to the conclusion that the amount of Rs.5,000/- is hardly sufficient to bring up a six year old child. It is submitted that the 1^st respondent/mother is contributing a substantial portion of her income towards maintenance and upbringing of the child. It is submitted that, even if the the education expenses of the child were excluded, the order passed by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the appellate court is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

4. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

5. Having heard the petitioner in person, the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the opinion that no grounds have been made for exercise of revisional jurisdiction vested in this Court. The primary contention of the petitioner is that he is not earning and he is not in a position to pay Rs.5,000/-. The contention of the petitioner, who appears in person is that, the mother, who is also earning is liable to contribute for the maintenance of the child and the entire expenses cannot be foisted on the father. A reading of