Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1902 (MAD)

S. KUMARESH v. K. NITHIN SAI

2015-04-15

S.NAGAMUTHU

body2015
ORDER : S. Nagamuthu, J. The petitioner is the father of the respondent. His wife is one Mrs. P. Vennila. The petitioner and Mrs. P. Vennila are working as teachers. But, now they are living separately. There are matrimonial disputes pending between them. The respondent is the only child born to them. Now, he is admittedly in the custody of his mother Mrs. P. Vennila. The respondent filed M.C. No. 36 of 2014 claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per month. He was represented by his mother Mrs. P. Vennila. The Trial Court, by order dated 6.1.2015, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 per month towards maintenance of the respondent. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this revision. This revision petition has come up today for admission. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the records carefully. 2. So far as the livelihood of the petitioner to maintain the respondent is not in dispute before this Court. What was represented by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the quantum ordered by the lower Court is highly exorbitant. According to him, the petitioner is earning only a sum of Rs. 8,000 per month and therefore, it would not be possible for him to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 to the respondent. 3. I have considered the above submissions. 4. A perusal of the petition filed before the lower Court would go to show that it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner is earning a sum of Rs. 35,000 per month. In the counter the said fact is disputed. But, the petitioner has not disclosed as to what his exact income was. He has also not disclosed his income by producing any documentary evidence. Therefore, adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and it can be held that the petitioner's income, as stated by the respondent, may be true. So far as the need of the amount for his maintenance is concerned, admittedly the respondent is studying in a private school, where, according to the document produced, the yearly fees comes around Rs. 28,500. Apart from that, the other expenses also to be met with. Having regard to all the above only, the Trial Court ordered a very reasonable amount as maintenance. 28,500. Apart from that, the other expenses also to be met with. Having regard to all the above only, the Trial Court ordered a very reasonable amount as maintenance. Therefore, I reject the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the amount awarded is highly exorbitant. Thus, I do not find any merit at all in this revision. In the result, this revision fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.