LAWS(KER)-2018-5-12

IVAN RATHINAM Vs. MILAN JOSEPH

Decided On May 21, 2018
Ivan Rathinam Appellant
V/S
Milan Joseph Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the respondent in M.C. No.224 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court, Alappuzha. The said petition was filed by the respondent herein, a boy aged 6 years, through his mother claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Facts, though riveting, need to be narrated, albeit briefly, to have a proper understanding of the issues involved. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in the M.C. shall be referred to as 'Minor' and the respondent as 'Mr.R'. The mother of the Minor shall be referred to as 'Mrs.A'.

(3.) It was the case of the Minor that his mother, Mrs.A, married a certain Raju Kurian on 16.4.1989. After the birth of their first child, their relationship soured. From the year 1996, they never had any physical relationship though they lived in the same house. During this period, she got close with Mr.R, who was her distant relative. Their relationship bloomed into a love affair and she was persuaded to have non-consensual sexual relationship with him. The Minor was born in the said relationship on 11.6.2001. Due to the situation prevailing then, in all the hospital records, the name of the father was shown as Raju Kurian. It was decided that the entry need to be corrected for various reasons. A suit was consequently instituted before the Civil Court. The prayer was for a decree declaring that Mr.R is the father of the Minor and for mandatory injunction directing Mr.R to submit necessary application to include his name as the father in the relevant register and to seek for the removal of the name of Raju Kurian. According to the plaintiffs, the Minor had congenital urinary ailments and hearing impairment and requires continuous treatment. She was not in a position to afford the expenses for his medicine and treatment and also for his education. It was asserted that the Minor was on the verge of vagrancy and starvation and prayed for issuance of directions to the respondent, who is a police officer, to pay a sum of Rs.10, 000/- towards maintenance.