DEOKI NANDAN, J. - (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 or 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 ob-servatious of the Supreme Court in A.I.R 1975 S C. 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 circumstance-of the case into consideration and the present-day corditions, 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'- tier 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.
(3.) 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. 100/- per month shall be payable from the date of the order of the Chief Judi­cial Magistrate. Ghaziabad which was May 23. 1978. There will be no order as to costs.;