Judgment : JANARTHANAM, J. ( 1 ) ONE Lakshmi, presently working as Supervisor, Tamil Nadu Integrated Nutritious Programme at Panchayat Union Office, Mulanoor, Dharapuram Taluk, Periyar District claimed maintenance for her two minor children, namely, Aghalya Devi and Karunakaran, by filing a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against her husband P. Bhagavathi, which was taken on file as M. C. No. 3 of 1984 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Ramanathapuram. ( 2 ) THE maintenance petition was based on the grounds of cruelty, torture and second marriage of her husband and refusal and neglect to maintain herself and her minor children for no reason whatever. ( 3 ) THE husband, of course, entered appearance through a counsel of his choice and filed a counter, resisting the maintenance claim. ( 4 ) THE wife alone adduced evidence on her behalf and during the course of evidence, she restricted the claim of maintenance only to her children. ( 5 ) THE husband did not get himself examined; nor adduced any rebuttal evidence. But what he has done was, he did file a memo before learned trial Magistrate to the effect of admitting his marriage with the first petitioner and the paternity of the two children. He also specifically stated therein that he would not adduce any evidence on his behalf. ( 6 ) ON consideration of the materials available on record, learned Magistrate ordered maintenance to the two children granting each of them a sum of Rs. 150. 00 per mensem with effect from 13/1/1984, the date of the petition. The aggrieved husband came forward with the present action challenging the said order by stating that the maintenance ordered in a sum of Rs. 150. 00 per mensem to each of the two children is on the high side, calling for interference. 150. 00 per mensem with effect from 13/1/1984, the date of the petition. The aggrieved husband came forward with the present action challenging the said order by stating that the maintenance ordered in a sum of Rs. 150. 00 per mensem to each of the two children is on the high side, calling for interference. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that the maintenance petition before the trial Court was pending quite long for no fault of his but as a result of the Presiding Officer not having been posted for well over four years and that perhaps was the reason for the inordinate delay in the case getting terminated after seven years and more in the Court below, thereby making him liable for payment of a huge sum by way of maintenance to his children for a pretty long period of more than seven years, in the sense of payment of arrears of maintenance to the children from the date of the petition and it is very difficult for him to make the payment in the impecunious circumstance in which he is placed on and from the date of the petition and therefore it is, it would be proper for this Court to make an order for payment of maintenance to the children, at least from the date of the order, which event happened on 30/10/1991. ( 7 ) TO both the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am unable to affix my seal of approval, in the facts and circumstances of the case. The evidence available on record, as referred to by the trial Magistrate, points out that the petitioner/husband is presently holding the post of Headmaster of a School at Chellappam palayam, getting a monthly emolument of Rs. 2,874. 00, besides owning landed properties worth Rs. 60,000. 00, obviously fetching some income. The maintenance awarded namely, Rs. 150. 00 per mensem to each of the two children is after all pittance, which is not even sufficient to keep their souls intact and for livelihood in this world. Further the unrebutted materials available on record point out that they are studying in a school and for their education, a sizable income may be required to be spent. 150. 00 per mensem to each of the two children is after all pittance, which is not even sufficient to keep their souls intact and for livelihood in this world. Further the unrebutted materials available on record point out that they are studying in a school and for their education, a sizable income may be required to be spent. On the face of the financial status of the petitioner, it cannot at all be stated that the maintenance awarded to the two children is excessive, calling for interference. ( 8 ) THE fact that the case was Pending for quite a long time in the Court below for want of a Presiding Officer is no ground at all for altering the payment of maintenance on and from the date of the presentation of the petition. For the non-posting of the Presiding Officer, the innocent two minor children, in whose favour the maintenance had been awarded, cannot be made to suffer. It is but legitimate for the Court to pass an order in the matter of award of maintenance on and from the date of the petition. ( 9 ) IN this context, it is but proper to refer to certain observations made in the decision rendered in KA. Natarajan v. M. Raina Mohamed1, on which reliance is placed by learned Counsel for the petitioner. My attention has been drawn to an observation of a learned Judge of this Court in the aforesaid decision in paragraph 14, which is to the following effect:it is well-established that an act of Court cannot prejudice a party Factus Curiae Neminem Gravabit. Where the case stands over on account of the multiplicity of the business in the Court, the party ought not to be prejudiced by the delay in the disposal of the case by the Court. These observations, in my view, rather support the case of the two minor children than rendering any assistance to advance the case of the petitioner. ( 10 ) AS such, there are no merits in the revision petition and therefore, the same is dismissed, even at the admission stage. Petition dismissed.