The court upheld the obligation of a parent to provide adequate maintenance for a physically challenged child, confirming the family court's assessment of financial needs.

J U D G M E N T

C.S.Sudha, J.

The aforesaid RP(FC)s and Mat.Appeal have been filed against the common judgment dated 30/12/2021 of the Family Court, Kannur, in O.P.No.1130/2017 and M.C.No.317/2017. Mat.Appeal No.314/2023 has been filed by the respondent/wife in O.P.No.1130/2017, aggrieved by the grant of a decree of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the petitioner/husband. In M.C.No.317/2017 filed by the petitioner/wife, maintenance @ ₹8,000/- has been granted to the minor child of the couple. Aggrieved, both the petitioner as well as the respondent in the MC have preferred the above-mentioned petitions. The parties in this proceeding will be referred to as described in M.C.No.317/2017.

2. O.P.No.1130/2017 was filed by the petitioner/husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The same has been allowed, against which Mat.Appeal No.314/2023 has been preferred. The parties were referred for mediation. In the mediation, the matter was settled between the parties and it was agreed that both the parties would move a joint petition for divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 . Accordingly, we are told that a joint petition was filed before the family court concerned and a decree of divorce has been obtained. Mat.Appeal No.314/2023 has become infructuous and so the same is dismissed as infructuous.

3. In M.C.No.317/2017 filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the petitioners are the wife and minor child of the respondent. According to the petitioners, the respondent is a skilled worker earning a monthly income of ₹50,000/-. The respondent deserted the first petitioner and her minor child since 15/01/2017. Hence, maintenance @ ₹6,000/- to the first petitioner and maintenance @ ₹18,000/- to the second petitioner was sought.

4. The respondent/husband denied the liability and contended that the petitioner/wife is having sufficient means and she is keeping away from his company without any reasonable cause, and therefore she is not entitled to any maintenance.

5. On completion of pleadings, the parties went to trial.

O.P.No.1130/2017 was taken as the main case in which evidence was recorded. The respondent in M.C.No.317/2017, the petitioner/husband in O.P.No.1130/2017 was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A20 series were marked on his side. The 1st petitioner/wife in M.C.No.317/2017, the respondent/wife in O.P.No.1130/2017 was examined as RW1 and her witness as RW2. Exts.B1 to B16 series were marked. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the family court by the impugned judgment allowed maintenance @₹8,000/- per month to the second petitioner. The claim of the first petitioner for maintenance has been declined. Aggrieved, both the parties in M.C.No.317/2017 have challenged the order in the above RPFCs.

6. The only point that arises for consideration is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the family court calling for an interference by this Court.

7. Heard both sides

8. According to the first petitioner/wife, the amount of ₹8,000/-

per month awarded to the second petitioner as maintenance is quite paltry as the second petitioner, a minor child, is physically challenged and hence quite a substantial sum is required for the treatment of the child. To substantiate her case, RW2, a physiotherapist, was examined and Exts.B2 to B16 series medical records were produced. RW2 deposed that he has been providing physiotherapy treatment to the minor child for the past two years and that the treatment is to continue for a period of 4 to 5 years. Ext.B1 certificate issued by a consultant neurologist shows that the child has cerebral palsy and he needs regular physiotherapy treatment. Exts.B2 to B13 series are the medical records pertaining to the minor child. The trial court referring to these documents, held that the same clearly would indicate that the minor child requires constant medication and physiotherapy. RW2 also deposed that his fees is ₹270/- per sitting. The medic