' Respondents Nos.1 to 3 are daughters of the petitioner. They are presently living with their mother.
On a suit for maintenance filed by them the learned Judge, Family Court, fixed their maintenance at the rate of Rs,2,000 per month as- past maintenance and Rs,3,000 for future maintenance. On appeal by the petitioner, the learned District Judge has modified the order of the Judge, Family Court and fixed the rate of maintenance at Rs,2,000 per month as past maintenance w,e,f, July, 1993 as also the future maintenance. This is a writ petition assailing the aforesaid judgments.
2. In support of this petition the learned counsel contends that the petitioner is a retired employee of Punjab Road Transport Corporation whose only income is pension of Rs,453 per month and has no means of paying such maintenance to the minors as has been ordered by the Courts. He contends that the mother of the minors with whom they are living is well-placed and can look after them whereas the petitioner is a sick person suffering from Tuberculosis.
3. Before the learned Judge, Family Court, evidence was led on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was a man of means having land, business and a taxi car whose monthly income was not less than 7/8 thousand. This was denied by the petitioner. However, the Courts below on appreciating the evidence led by the parties arrived at the aforesaid conclusion and recorded their judgments. The learned District Judge has modified the rate of maintenance fixing at Rs,2,000 per month as past and future purposes. It was noted by the learned District Judge that the minors were school-going children and found Rs,2,000 per month as reasonable amount for their maintenance.
4. In view of these findings, I was not inclined to interfere in the matter. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner at the limine stage stated that the petitioner was ready to pay Rs,2,000 per month as maintenance but was unable to pay the amount of past maintenance in lump sum.
For this purpose, therefore, a notice was sent to the respondents for some adjustment in the payment of the past maintenance. In response the respondents minors are represented through the learned counsel who stated that the petitioner can pay an amount of Rs,1,00,000 in installments instead of Rs,1,38,000 which would have been payable by him as past maintenance from July, 1993 to April, 1999. However, the petitioner who is present in Court does not accept this offer and states that he will only pay half of the decretal amount towards the past maintenance and that too yin instalments. The matter, thus, could not be resolved.
5. It was pointed out that the petitioner has entered into another marriage. He has children as well and that he is a person of reasonable means.
6. I have again considered the matter. The preponderance of evidence and the circumstances do strongly suggest that the view taken by the learned District Judge in fixing the quantum of maintenance at Rs,2,000 per month is fair, just, proper and reasonable. I am not inclined to believe the version of the petitioner that his only source of income is pension of Rs,453 per month. During the recording of his statement before the learned Judge, Family Court he was put a question as to whether he had entered into another marriage but he denied the same. He has now admitted the factum of marriage as also the children out of the same. A person having meagre means as suggested by him could not think of having another wife and children.
7. In view of the above, I do not find any justification to interfere in the matter. This petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.