SALAM BAPPUTTY Vs. AYISHA POKKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the respondent in a claim for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. There is no marriage between the petitioner herein and the mother of the claimant. It would appear that the allegation is that the mother of the claimant was raped and the child was born in such relationship. The dispute regarding the paternity was raised. The parties got the D.N.A. test conducted. The D.N. A. test was answered against the petitioner. Thereupon the claimant submitted that she has no further evidence. The report of the learned Judge of the Family Court shows that the petitioner herein and his Counsel had also submitted that they have no evidence to adduce. The matter was heard and the petition was posted for orders to 18.9.2006. It is at that stage, the petitioner came before this Court on 12.9.2006 and filed this petition. Orders of stay were issued and the claim under Section 125, Cr.P.C. remains without disposal even now.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner wants evidence to be adduced. Even assuming that an erroneous submission had been made before the learned Judge of the Family Court that the petitioner has no evidence to adduce, humane and reasonable view may be taken and the petitioner may be granted one further opportunity to adduce evidence on his side, it is prayed.

(3.) I find no reason not to accept the report of the learned Judge that the petitioner and his Counsel had reported that they have no evidence to adduce. Be that as it may, 1 am satisfied that interests of justice will be served ideally by granting the petitioner a further opportunity to adduce all such evidence that he wants to adduce on the next date of posting subject to appropriate conditions. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that such course shall cater ideally to the interests of justice.