AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Chauhan, J.—The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 5.8.2010, passed by the learned Judge, Family court No. 1, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has increased the maintenance of Petitioner''s son, Master Somya, from Rs. 2,000/per month to Rs. 3,500/- per month.
The brief facts of the case are that 5.3.2008, an application was filed by Smt. Neetu Rastogi on behalf of her minor son, Master Somya, Respondent No. 1, seeking increase in the maintenance from Rs. 2,000/-per month to Rs. 6,000/- per month. After receiving the notice, the Petitioner filed his reply. After submitting evidence from both the sides, vide order dated 5.8.2010, the learned Judge partly allowed the application and increased the maintenance from Rs. 2,000/- per month to Rs. 3,500/- per month and further ordered to pay Rs. 500/-as litigation expenses to the Respondent. Hence, this petition before this Court.
Mr. Virendra Dave, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has contended that the Petitioner''s ex-wife, Smt. Neetu Rastogi, is employed. Therefore, she is in a position to maintain the son who has born out of the wedlock. Secondly, no document has been submitted to show the change of circumstances. Therefore, the application u/s 127 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking increase in the maintenance should have been dismissed by the learned Judge. Instead, the learned Judge has increased the maintenance as aforementioned.
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
It is, indeed, trite to state that the maintenance of a child is the joint responsibility of the parents i.e. of the Petitioner and of Smt. Neetu Rastogi. Admittedly, the child is living with Smt. Neetu Rastogi. Merely because, the child is living with his mother, does not absolve the legal and moral liability of the father to maintain him.
The learned Judge is certainly justified in concluding that from 2003, when the order for maintenance was passed, the price index has increased greatly. Therefore, he was justified in increasing the maintenance amount from Rs. 2000/per month to Rs. 3500/- per month.
Therefore, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.