RAMKRISHAN Vs. RAMAVTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision has been brought challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 27.03.2015, passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.165 of 2007 allowing the application of respondent and directing payment of Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance until the respondent attains majority. Respondent is a minor child, who filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. through his mother against this applicant, praying for grant of maintenance on the ground that he is the biological son of this applicant, who was born as a result of physical relation of the applicant with the mother of the respondent and that respondent is a man of means and neglecting the maintenance of the respondent. This application was contested denying the paternity of the respondent. That application has been decided by the impugned order holding that the respondent is the son of the applicant and on that basis, the order of maintenance has been passed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there had been clearly a question of paternity of the respondent, which has not been clearly decided by the learned Family Court. The Family Court has relied upon the birth certificate only which is a document which can be created on the information given by any person and that application has been given by the mother of the respondent. Therefore, that was not a conclusive proof to determine the paternity.

(3.) Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this High Court in the case between Chaturbhuj vs. Amar, 2009 3 CgLJ 322, it is submitted that this Court has earlier held that evidence of mother of respondent and her witnesses is not sufficient to prove fact of any relation of the mother of the respondent with the petitioner and on that basis, the order of maintenance was quashed.