CHANDNI SHARMA Vs. GOPAL DUTT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is filed by the petitioner, through her mother who is her natural guardian, under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for revising the order dated 13.02.2009, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directing the respondent herein, father of the petitioner, to pay her a sum of 1,000/- p.m. from 24.9.2001 to 31.3.2005 and a sum of 1,500/- p.m. from 1.4.2005 to 22.8.2007, as maintenance.

(2.) The brief relevant facts of this case are that the petitioner s mother had alleged that she had got married to the respondent on 3.12.1988, and from this union, the petitioner was born 22.8.1989. However, the fact of the marriage was denied by the respondent, who subsequently got married to another lady. The respondent further denied being the father of the petitioner. Since the petitioner was a minor, hence a petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC was filed on her behalf by her mother and natural guardian, Ms. G.A. Arife. By the impugned order dated 13.2.2009, the said petition was disposed of by the learned MM, in the aforementioned manner.

(3.) It is mentioned in the impugned order that by an earlier order dated 5.5.1993 passed by the learned MM, the petitioner was awarded interim maintenance at the rate of 300/- p.m. Later on, the matter came up before the High Court and as the respondent disputed being the father of the petitioner, he was directed to undergo a DNA test, to determine the paternity of the petitioner, which test confirmed the fact that the respondent was the father of the petitioner. In the aforesaid case registered as Crl.MM no. 3029/1993, the High Court vide order dated 29.4.2003 awarded to the petitioner, interim maintenance at the rate of 500/- p.m. The difference of 200/- per month was paid by the respondent in three installments. Till 24.9.2001, the highest amount of maintenance that could have been awarded under the statute was 500/-. The said provision came to be amended w.e.f 24.9.2001, as a result of which, the monetary limit placed on the amount of maintenance that could be awarded, was removed. The petitioner filed an application for enhancement of maintenance on 8.12.2003. In the impugned order, the learned MM observed that since the petitioner had attained majority on 22.8.2007, hence the period for which maintenance was required to be determined in the petition was for the period from 24.9.2001 till 22.8.2007. The same period concerns this court for determination of maintenance, in the event an enhanced sum is found to be due and payable to the petitioner. The learned MM also observed that the respondent had not disputed the report of the DNA test for the purposes of the petition by the petitioner filed seeking maintenance. On the basis of the materials placed on record and the testimonies of the petitioner s mother and the respondent, maintenance was granted to the petitioner at the rate of 1,000/- p.m. from 24.9.2001 to 31.3.2005 and at the rate of 1,500/- p.m. from 1.4.2005 to 22.8.2007, while directing that the interim maintenance already paid to her be deducted from the amount so awarded.