JUDGMENT P. Janaki Amma, J. 1. The revision petitioner is the father of a minor now aged about 7 years, who is a second respondent. The first respondent is the mother of the minor. The revision petitioner and the first respondent executed Ext. P-1, the deed of divorce dissolving their marriage on 19th March 1970. The second respondent was then a child aged about 3 years. The child was then living with the mother. It was agreed that the child should remain with her and that she should look after her and maintain her as before and that the revision petitioner would not be asked to maintain the child. Contrary to the above provision, the first respondent, as the guardian of the minor demanded maintenance from the revision petitioner. A registered notice making such a demand was also sent. The revision petitioner did not respond to such demand and this led to the filing of M.C. 16 of 1973 before the Additional First Class Magistrate, Trivandrum. The revision petitioner denied his liability to maintain the child placing reliance on the term in Ext. P-1, the deed of divorce. He also disputed the quantum of maintenance. The Additional First Class Magistrate, Trivandrum overruled his objections and directed him to pay maintenance to the child at the rate of Rs. 30 per month. This order is being challenged in this revision petition. 2. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that having undertaken to maintain the child at the time of divorce, the first respondent is precluded from putting forward a claim against the revision petitioner for the maintenance of the child. The stand taken by the revision petitioner is that the undertaking by the first respondent was consideration for the deed of divorce and as such, he is not bound to pay anything towards the maintenance of the child. 3. It has come out that both the revision petitioner as also the first respondent were employed at the time of their marriage in 1966. The petitioner is an Attender in the University Library, Trivandrum, while the first respondent is at present a Typist-Clerk in the Kerala State Electricity Board Office. The case of the petitioner is that at the time of the marriage, the first respondent was only a menial employee and that it was subsequent to the marriage that she got the present post. The case of the petitioner is that at the time of the marriage, the first respondent was only a menial employee and that it was subsequent to the marriage that she got the present post. She thereafter felt that the continuance of her marriage with the petitioner, who was still an Attender was derogatory to her. This gave rise to rift between the two culminating in their divorce. The divorce, according to the revision petitioner, was effected at the instance of the first respondent and that was the reason why she undertook to maintain the child. 4. The question that arises for consideration is whether the undertaking in Ext. P-1 by the first respondent to maintain the child would in any way stand against her claiming maintenance for the child from the revision petitioner. It is well recognised that the statutory provision in section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure casts a duty on a father to maintain both his legitimate as well as the illegitimate children. The general principle is that when a statute direct a thing to be done by a person, it is not open to him to contract out of that obligation. Therefore, the mere fact that a term is incorporated in Ext. P-1 that the first respondent would maintain the child is no answer to the claim of maintenance put forward on behalf of the child against the revision petitioner [See Abu Baker v. Katheesa, 1961 K.L.T. 581]. 5. The question as to whether a child who is in the custody of a mother who herself is employed and has means of her own is entitled to claim maintenance from the father was considered in the decision in H.J. Mascreen v. (Mrs.) R. K. Mascreen, A.I.R. 1956 Madras 154. In that case, the father of the child was a postal employee earning only Rs. 170 per month while the mother was a doctor earning about Rs. 270 to Rs. 300 per month. There was no legal marriage between the two. It was contended by the father that inasmuch as the mother was earning twice as much and more than the father, he was not obliged to pay maintenance to the children. The mother was the guardian of the person of the children under the Guardian and Wards Act and as such, there was a duty on the mother to support the children. The mother was the guardian of the person of the children under the Guardian and Wards Act and as such, there was a duty on the mother to support the children. The contention was overruled and it was held as follows: "But under the Criminal Procedure Code, the duty of maintaining the child is cast upon the father, and whatever may be the civil law, the provisions of section 488, Cr. P.C., are quite 'equal to the office of enforcing the duties of the father' which is to maintain the child, legitimate or illegitimate. No such duty is cast on the mother, either under the Code or any other law. There can, therefore, be no question of invoking any general principles with regard to the maintenance of a child whether it is obligatory on the part of the mother as in the present case, or on the tavazhi as in the case of a Malabar tarwad''. 6. It may be that the mother of the child has means to maintain her; but that will not absolve the revision petitioner of the duty to maintain the child. 7. It is then argued that no neglect or refusal has been proved in the case in the light of the term in Ext. P-1. However, it is borne out by records that the mother of the minor issued a registered notice demanding maintenance and the revision petitioner did not respond. This amounts to refusal to maintain. The revision petitioner has no case that he has been maintaining the child. 8. The quantum of maintenance is also disputed. It is argued that the revision petitioner has an aged mother and a widowed sister and her children to look after and that the amount of Rs. 30 per month awarded by the court is excessive. 9. It is in evidence that the first respondent in whose custody the minor was put at the time of the divorce is getting a salary of Rs. 325 per month while the revision petitioner is getting only Rs. 185 per month. Ordinarily, an amount of Rs. 30 for the maintenance of a child aged about 7 years cannot be said to be excessive. But the quantum of maintenance should be fixed taking into account the means of the father and other attendant circumstances. Although Ext. 325 per month while the revision petitioner is getting only Rs. 185 per month. Ordinarily, an amount of Rs. 30 for the maintenance of a child aged about 7 years cannot be said to be excessive. But the quantum of maintenance should be fixed taking into account the means of the father and other attendant circumstances. Although Ext. P-1 is no bar in the child claiming maintenance from the father, the fact that the mother has undertaken to maintain the child, has means and is looking after the child can be taken into account in deciding the quantum. Under the circumstances, I think, maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20 per month will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. If at any time it is found that the child requires an enhanced maintenance due to change in circumstances, it is open to her to put forward a claim for increased rate. The revision is allowed to the above extent.