KUMARI LOKAMMA Vs. SUNDARA SAPAIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In MC.No.70173 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Second Court, Mangalore, the application was filed under S.488 CrPC(Old) by a child (girl), represented by her mother and guardian. The respondent was the alleged father. The applicant claimed maintenance from him at Rs.100 per month. The respondent disputed his paternity of the petitioner-child. Evidence, both oral and documentary, was adduced. The Magistrate held that the petitioner has not proved that she is the illegitimate child of the respondent. The second sentence in Para 22 of the Order dt.7-6-1975 of the Magistrate reads :

(2.) The Revision Petitioner here is the petitioner before the Magistrate. During the cross-examination of the respondent (RW.2), the following answer appears : 'I am prepared to have my blood tested'. PUS would indicate that both sides had in mind the blood grouping in disputed paternity cases and it is astonishing why this aspect was not pursued by either side, or at least by the Magistrate.

(3.) To-day two-memos have been filed, one by the petitioner's learned Advocate and the other by the respondent's learned Advocate. The memo for the petitioner reads : " The petitioner is ready to, undergo blood test and the mother would produce the child for the examination." The memo for the respondent reads :-