Ordering 'Pittance Amount' As Maintenance Violates Child's Right To Decent Living: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has stated that ordering 'pittance' by way of maintenance amount violates the right of a child to a decent living. It stated that Courts while ordering maintenance for children should be more cautious to ensure that the amount ordered would be sufficient to meet both ends together.Justice P. Somarajan observed that a child cannot be left at the mercy of the father and has...
The Kerala High Court has stated that ordering 'pittance' by way of maintenance amount violates the right of a child to a decent living. It stated that Courts while ordering maintenance for children should be more cautious to ensure that the amount ordered would be sufficient to meet both ends together.
Justice P. Somarajan observed that a child cannot be left at the mercy of the father and has a valuable and substantive right to get maintenance which would meet the educational, medical and other expenses of the child.
“Right to get maintenance to a child born in the wedlock from the father is a substantive right, for which, the child cannot be termed as at the mercy of her father. But, it is her valuable right and the father is bound to maintain the child. It should reflect the amount required for the maintenance of the child inclusive of educational expenses, medical expenses and all other expenses connected with the livelihood”, stated the Court.
In the facts of the case, the petitioner-mother and minor child approached the High Court by way of a Revision Petition against the order of the Family Court. The Family Court granted an amount of rupees 2500 per month for maintenance of the minor child, who was aged 13 years now.
The Court stated that a pittance amount cannot be ordered for the maintenance of the minor child as it violates their right to a decent life. The Court thus modified the maintenance amount and increased it to rupees 6000 per month. It did not interfere with the order of the Trial Court disallowing maintenance to the wife since there was a finding that she has sufficient means.
Accordingly, the petition was partly allowed.
Counsel For Revision Petitioners: Advocate T G Rajendran
Counsel For Respondent: Senior Advocate Dr K P Satheesan, Advocates P Mohandas Ernakulam, K Sudhinkumar, S Vibheeshanan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 160
Case title: Darsana v Sunil
Case number: RPFC NO. 554 OF 2016