Judgment :- 1. Suseela Amma is a heroine in her own way. There are many like her, whose heroics are unnoticed in the ballads of our times. 2. Right from the time she was delivered as a baby in the Victoria Hospital, Quilon, on 27th November, 1957, she had to fight against inimical environment. She could not enjoy a caressing kiss of an affectionate father; nor a paternal pat; she was 'An infant crying in the night, An infant crying for the light, And with no language but a cry'. The matrimonial life of her mother bad already floundered on the rock of mistrust. The broken down matrimonial home, liberated the unhappy inhabitants when on 27-9-1958, the imprimatur of the Court sanctioned the snapping of the marital relationship. 3. The separated spouses were still young. Understandably, each of them loved to have a life to their liking. Sarojini Amma, the mother of Suseela married her husband's brother Kuttan Pillai. Two children were born out of that wedlock. Her father married Padmavathy Amma, a teacher. This teacher couple had five children in that conjugal union. It was then a case of my children, your children and our child. 4. The little class quickly crossed the classes in the school, although drinking from the glass of her childish sorrows. She left the school and crossed her teens. Collegiate education was costly though. A helping hand of a sympathetic uncle, was found to be weak and wearied. Inexhaustible are not the resources of a middle class family. 5. A daughter's demand for assistance at this juncture was cruelly turned down by her father. Unfortunately and quite unexpectedly of a member of the teaching profession, he adopted what is established to be an unduly cruel and hostile attitude. Literally, he added insult to injury, when he disclaimed her as his daughter and attributed infidelity to her mother. This led to this unfortunate litigation where she claimed for fond and raiments, for her collegiate studies and other expenses a sum of Rs. 230/- per month. Disclaiming paternity was an easy way of disputing the liability. It was what the defendant did. This necessarily compelled the plaintiff to attempt what ultimately turned out to be massive evidence, to establish a lawful marriage between the defendant and her mother and the paternity she claimed over the defendant. 230/- per month. Disclaiming paternity was an easy way of disputing the liability. It was what the defendant did. This necessarily compelled the plaintiff to attempt what ultimately turned out to be massive evidence, to establish a lawful marriage between the defendant and her mother and the paternity she claimed over the defendant. She must have passed through excruciating agony, when, in the course of the cross-examination, she was asked to confirm about the fidelity of her mother, and of her paternity. Advocate R. Neelakanta Pillai proved Ext. C1 petition, a petition filed by the defendant. There is a clear recital therein about the marriage of the defendant with the plaintiff's mother and a subsequent dissolution. There was an ugly attempt on the part of the defendant at wriggling out of the forceful effect of this document. About that, then is a separate order. Pws. 3 and 4 were neighbours who attended the marriage. The plaintiff's mother save evidence as Pw 5. Kuttan Pillai gave evidence as Pw. 6 He spoke about the circumstances under which he married Sarojini Amma. She was cruelly abandoned by his brother. That was an unjust act. Another brother of his, Gopala Pillai, advised that he should better marry her. He felt accepting that advice. And that led to his marriage with the plaintiff's mother. He explains how his name happened to be shown as the father's name, when Suseela joined the school. This circumstance had been highly blotted up by the defence, in an attempt to throw dust into an otherwise clear vision about the relationship of the parties. The mother of the defendant, aged 82 was made to swear that there was no marriage between Sarojini Amma and Karunakaran Nair. For a variety of reasons, such as her advanced age. and infirm mind and the influence which Karunakaran Nair who maintains her would be having, that testimony is unsafe to be acted upon. Many matters spoken to by her are hearsay. Many acts of her conduct are unnatural. For similar reasons, the evidence of defendant's sister Devaki Amma. aged 62, Dw. 4, is unreliable. Equally unreliable is the evidence of Dw 3. against whom there was a suggestion that he was a hireling of the defendant. To a crucial question about the identity of the plaintiff's mother, he could only plead ignorance. 6. For similar reasons, the evidence of defendant's sister Devaki Amma. aged 62, Dw. 4, is unreliable. Equally unreliable is the evidence of Dw 3. against whom there was a suggestion that he was a hireling of the defendant. To a crucial question about the identity of the plaintiff's mother, he could only plead ignorance. 6. The courts below rightly rejected the defence plea disputing the paternity. There is abundance of evidence to establish the marriage between the defendant and the plaintiff's mother, and to prove the paternity of the defendant in relation to the plaintiff. The finding come to by the courts below is unshakable. Needless to stress, this Court did not permit that question to be raised in the second appeal. Counsel for the appellant rightly refrained from urging any such contention in this Court. 7. The only question on which notice was ordered related to the quantum of maintenance awarded. The trial court decreed the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month. The appellate court, enhanced it to Rs. 150/-. In as much as this Court indicated a desirability of setting a standard in relation to the amount of maintenance to be awarded by courts in similar situations, it was felt desirable that the question is decided with due advertence to and emphasis on the legal principles too. 8. Smt. Subhagamani, Advocate for the respondent and the President of the Indian Federation of Women lawyers, Kerala Branch, to whom notice was issued by the Court liberally assisted the court in the case. 9. This Court had indicated the approach to be made by the courts of law while dealing with the pressing cases of neglected wives and the abandoned children in Radhakumari v. K. M. K. Nair, 1982 KLT. 417. A necessity for expeditious disposal of such claims, and an indication about maintenance amounts not being illusory had been stressed in that decision. There was critical academic comments on that decision, some very hostile, some appreciative. Male chauvinism has still its strangle hold in society. The decision has been followed in later cases by this Court and elsewhere. 10. Some of the decisions have attempted to evolve some empirical formula such as the one in Kokilaben and Others v. Harshadbbai Narandas Patel, II (1986) DMC 210, where the total income was divided by the units, reckoned at two per adult and one per minor. 11. The decision has been followed in later cases by this Court and elsewhere. 10. Some of the decisions have attempted to evolve some empirical formula such as the one in Kokilaben and Others v. Harshadbbai Narandas Patel, II (1986) DMC 210, where the total income was divided by the units, reckoned at two per adult and one per minor. 11. The safer course would be to follow the larger guide posts available on the question as indicated in the decision Kulbhushan v. Raj Kumari. AIR. 1971 SC. 234. The totality of the attendant facts and circumstances will have necessarily to be evaluated by the court. 12. Judicial discussion in this regard, must necessarily be tuned to the needs of the time. The trial court totally missed them, when it gave a pittance of a sum of Rs. 25/- to a girl pursuing her collegiate education. Courts of law cannot act like old world grandmothers, who expect demonstrable joy when they slip into the donee's hands a five rupee note. She is obviously living in her childhood days, when that was much of a money. An institution which has to deal justice to a needy party, cannot but be alive and agile in its approach and actions. The depressing depletion of money value has been noted by this Court in Kunjamma v. Geeverghese, 1984 KLT. 128. That decision has referred to the thoughts of eminent legal minds in relation to the legal problems arising out of deflationary trends of the real value of money. It will be a mockery of justice, if after much of legal fight (as has been valiantly attempted by the plaintiff in the case) she is to be satisfied with a monthly grant of Rs. 25/-, even for the realisation of which she has to spend much energy and much time. 13. A meaningful amount by way of maintenance has necessarily to provide for many of the physical and social needs of the modern man. He does not live by bread alone. Bread there must be. Clothing is equally important. Apparel, to large extent at any rate, make the man; and the woman too. An ultra modern tunic would obviously be beyond the pale of consideration in the case of a needy woman or a child in want. However, consistent with her social life, sufficient provision for the requirements of her dress has to be provided for. Apparel, to large extent at any rate, make the man; and the woman too. An ultra modern tunic would obviously be beyond the pale of consideration in the case of a needy woman or a child in want. However, consistent with her social life, sufficient provision for the requirements of her dress has to be provided for. In the case of student attending the school or the college, sufficiently decent dress would be an indispensable component in the maintenance budget. Impart of education is an essential parental duty. As Lord Oxford said: "A man is not free unless be has bad the means and opportunities of education." If the child is studious, the noble traits are not to be suppressed by the indifference of the parent. Commutation of the place where the college is, or the cost of the hostel life, should then enter into the reckoning while providing for the maintenance amount. 14. The indications in the decisions of modern times, may be usefully noted by a Court, even as an empirical help. Counsel for the respondents referred to many decisions, where sums comparable to the decree of the lower court bad been granted: Kulbhushan v. Raj Kumari, (AIR 1971 SC 234) (Rs. 150/- per mensem) Krishna Kant R. Dalvi v. Smt. Sadhana K. Dalvi, I (1984) DMC. 97 (Rs. 400/- per mensem for two children.) Radhamani v. Sonu, 1 (1986) DMC. 281 (Rs. 200 per mensem for two children.) Kokilaben and Others v. Harshadbhai Narandas Patel, II (1986) DMC. 210. (Rs. 350/- and odd for two children.) 15. The defendant in this case is admittedly a teacher. A teacher's salary is not a grossly meagre one as was in the days of old. He has admittedly a paddy field and a garden land, admeasuring 31 cents and 1 acre and 50 cents respectively. An employed wife and supplemental income, are advantageous factors which the defendant has. They cannot be overlooked by the Court, while determining the maintenance to be given to a crying child. The lower appellate court had been more realistic in its approach, when it awarded Rs. 150/-, The award, if at all, errs on the lower side. I have no hesitation in affirming that decision and dismissing the appeal. In the absence of a cross-objection, the court cannot grant her more. I dismiss the second appeal with costs throughout. The lower appellate court had been more realistic in its approach, when it awarded Rs. 150/-, The award, if at all, errs on the lower side. I have no hesitation in affirming that decision and dismissing the appeal. In the absence of a cross-objection, the court cannot grant her more. I dismiss the second appeal with costs throughout. As for this Court she will have costs including litigation expenses which I fix in the sum of Rs. 500/-. And to the Indian Federation of Women Lawyers, which assisted the Court with a very short notice, the Court can offer only its thanks, sincere thanks. 16. Counsel for respondent submitted that Suseela Amma is now a graduate in science and a graduate in Education. She never lost faith in Court and hope for the future; she never allowed herself to be ensnared in the sombre and paralying adversities. That she achieved these academic distinctions despite a nagging misfortune makes her a heroine in her own way. This is her heroism referred to in the opening sentence of this judgment. In a sense, the father should be proud of her achievements. If the passage of time has bad a healing touch, a happy reconciliation may still be possible. A father should only be happy if his daughter opens up a more glorious chapter in her book of life, even as he and others of his generation are turning off the less legible leaves of a closing chapter. 17. It is about a decade since the plaintiff came to Court. One would have thought that there was an earlier culmination of this delicate litigation. The concern of the Court in this sphere of human agony was voiced five years back when it decided Radhakumari's case, supra, in 1982. The attention of the authorities was invited to a crying need for a Family Court. The court is yet to be. The atmosphere of disconcerting unpredictability continues even now. There have been pronouncements and declarations about the sooner establishment of this needed institution. The horizon is still hazy. And it murmurs the Chinese saying: "There is sound all along the stairs but nobody is coming."