SALENDRA @ SUMIT SONI Vs. SURENDRA KUMAR SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Sec. 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred against the judgment and decree dtd. 30/9/2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.), in Civil Suit No.30A/2020.

(2.) Vide the judgment impugned, the Family Court has dismissed the application filed under Sec. 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by the plaintiff/appellant for declaration of son of the defendants/respondents holding it to be barred by limitation and rights & and declaration of property rights being not within the purview of matrimonial party, was held to be not maintainable.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of son of defendants and for declaration of property rights on the ground that he resided with his mother/defendant No.2 and was born on 12/11/1995 out of the marital relationship of defendant Nos. 01 and 02. It was averred that the defendant No. 01 has ancestral property in village Umeshpur, where the defendant No.2 was his neighbor. There was a love affair of defendant No. 01 with defendant No. 02 & had physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage. Due to the said relationship, defendant No.02 became pregnant and when defendant No.2 refused to abort the pregnancy, defendant No.1 ended relation with defendant No.2. Thereafter, defendant No. 2 lodged a complaint in police station Surajpur, on which FIR for offence under Sec. 376 of IPC was registered. After registration of FIR, the defendant No. 1 sharply refused to marry with defendant No.2 and on 12/11/1995 the plaintiff was born. After being separated from the society on account of becoming a mother before marriage, the defendant No.02 did not have any source of income, therefore, defendant No.02 along with plaintiff jointly filed a case of maintenance against defendant No.01 under Sec. 125 CrPC before Family Court, Surajpur. It has also been averred that the name of the defendant No.01 was recorded as proof in all the official and nongovernment documents of the plaintiff being his father, however, the defendant No.1 denied the status of his father. The cause of action arose in the month of April, 2017, when the plaintiff fell ill and due to financial crisis, he went to the house of defendant No. 01 and sought financial assistance for treatment, but defendant No.1 refused to accept the plaintiff as his son.