Deoki Nandan - (1.)THIS is an application by the father against an order directing him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month to his minor son who is undisputedly living under the care of his mother, the applicant's wife. The wife had claimed maintenance for herself but refused on the ground that she had the necessary ability to maintain herself and had deserted her husband. That, I was told is the subject matter of another revision by the wife, which is not before me today, and any observations made here are without prejudice to that case. The applicant had denied the liability to maintain his son by what have been termed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as vague allegations questioning the legitimacy of the child, which allegations were, however, not affirmed on oath. It has not been suggested before me that the child is not one who may be able to maintain itself, and I think rightly so, for the age of the child was about two years when the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was passed. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, contended that there is no finding that the applicant had neglected or refused to maintain the child. THIS contention is on the face of it untenable. The very fact that the applicant had disowned the paternity of the child shows that he was not prepared to maintain him.
(2.)THE question, however, remains whether the amount of maintenance ordered to be paid for the child alone, is excessive. THE learned Sessions Judge has observed that the amount is neither excessive nor less. THE applicant's income has been found to be Rs. 700/- per month. THE child is living under the care of his mother who has, according to the findings of the two courts below, deserted the applicant. Although the liability to maintain the child, in law, rests entirely on the applicant who is its father, the opposite party is the mother of the child and has some moral responsibility of maintaining the child herself. She is admittedly possessed of educational qualifications fit for a teaching job and was employed as a teacher prior to the marriage.
A too fine determination of the exact amount of maintenance payable for a child, according to the civil rights of the parties is, however, not the function of a criminal court. According to the observations of the Supreme Court in AIR 1975 SC 83, the amount of maintenance to be allowed has to be neither luxurious nor penurious but that which is modestly consistent with the status of the family, the object of the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure being to prevent vagarancy and destitution. Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, and the present-day conditions, I am of the opinion that the two courts below were in error in fixing the amount of maintenance for the child at Rs. 150/- per month. Looking to the monthly income of the father, the maximum which could be allowed is, in my opinion, Rs. 100/- per month, for the father has after all to meet his own needs also, and the amount of Rs. 100/- per month, in my opinion, would be sufficient to keep the child away from vagarancy and destitution, living as it is in the care and custody of the mother.

In the result, I allow this application in part and reduce the amount of maintenance payable to the minor son who is living under the care and custody of the opposite party to Rs. 100/- per month. The reduced amount of Rs. 103/- per month shall be payable from the date of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad which was 23rd May, j 978. There will be no order as to costs. Application partly allowed.