JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the order dated 6.3.2009, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kota, whereby the Judge has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month to respondent No.1, Reshama Parveen, the petitioner's wife, from 28.1.2005 till 4.6.2005 and also to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month for the three months of Iddat, and has also directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,000/- to the son, Farhan Khan, the respondent No.2, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that since the petitioner has divorced the respondent No.1, Reshama Parveen on 4.6.2005, she is not entitled to any maintenance. Moreover, he is aggrieved by the fact that the learned Judge has directed that the arrears of maintenance, which is to be paid to the son, should be paid by the petitioner. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 4. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Judge has appreciated the fact that the application for maintenance was filed on 28.1.2005 and the respondent No.1, Reshama Parveen, was divorced by the petitioner on 4.6.2005. Therefore, he has correctly held that she is entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month for the period of five months along with the maintenance for the iddat period of three months. Thus, he has properly directed that Reshama Parveen should be paid a sum of Rs. 8,000/- by the petitioner. When the petitioner did not pay the ordered amount, vide order dated 10.11.2010, the learned Judge has issued the recovery warrant of Rs. 56,100/- against the petitioner. Only thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. Considering the fact that Farhan Khan happens to be the son of the petitioner, born out of the wedlock, the petitioner is legally and morally duty bound to maintain the son. The learned Judge has granted a maintenance of merely Rs. 1,000/- per month to the son. He has further directed that the arrears from 28.1.2005 till 28.2.2009 i.e. for a period of 49 months should also be paid to the son. After all, the son is duly entitled to the said maintenance. In fact, in all fairness, the learned Judge has directed that the arrear amount of maintenance of Rs. 49,000/- should be paid in installments. 6. After all, the son is duly entitled to the said maintenance. In fact, in all fairness, the learned Judge has directed that the arrear amount of maintenance of Rs. 49,000/- should be paid in installments. 6. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******