SANT KUMAR Vs. NEERA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition for invoking inherent jurisdiction, the applicant has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 1 -10-2001 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar in Criminal Revision No. 280/2001, affirming the order dated 11-5-2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazaar in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 107/95, whereby both the Courts below have awarded maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') to non-applicant No. 3 Pappu.

(2.) THE order is challenged on the ground that Pappu is neither legitimate child nor illegitimate child of the applicant and has begotten & born after non-applicant No. 1 left the matrimonial house, i.e., the residence of the applicant and there was no occasion of physical relation between the applicant & non-applicant No. 1.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant submitted that non-applicant No. 1 gave birth to non-applicant No. 3 after two years of leaving the house of the applicant and there was no occasion for any physical relation between the applicant and non-applicant No. 1. Non-applicant No. 1 herself has admitted in her evidence recorded on 7-1-97 that she had left the house of the applicant two years before her statement, and the birth certificate of non-applicant No. 3 shows that non-applicant No. 3 was born on 18-11-95. The applicant has specifically made allegation in his reply that non-applicant No. 3 is not legitimate or illegitimate child of the applicant and he is not liable for maintenance to non-applicant No. 3. However, the non-applicants have not adduced any evidence to establish that non-applicant No. 3 is the legitimate child of the applicant and even after leaving the house of the applicant by non-applicant No. 1 there was opportunity of access to each other at the time of alleged pregnancy of non-applicant No. 1 in relation to the birth of non-applicant No. 3.