BABY Vs. MATHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The harijan woman is still a prey to the lascivious deceit of the rich and the mighty. She would literally be thrown into the street, once the use is over. The child born out of a connection not recognised by law an innocent victim has to carry the crown of sorrow. The existing legal mechanism and the obsolescent administrative set up are grossly inadequate to give a timely help to the needy child. These appear to be the lessons of the second appeal, which reveals tragic facts.

(2.) Santha is the harijan girl involved in this case. In a rural setting in the suburb of the Cochin city, in Edakkattuvayal Village, she was living with her parents. Mathai of Manayidathil house, owned many items of properties. The property adjacent to Santha's house had an extent of two acres. There was a small house. Mathai stayed there alone, though aged about thirty five. There was nothing to block the passage between his house and the hut of Santha. An illegitimate intimacy led to her pregnancy. Mathai, initially anxious in the matter, took her to a nurse to verify whether she was pregnant at all; and if pregnant to ascertain whether the pregnancy was an advanced one. The nurse answered both the questions apparently in the affirmative. Santha in due time gave birth to a baby. Baby is her name. The nurse recorded the name of the child as Baby and gave particulars as "daughter of Santha Mathai". Some money was paid to Santha by Mathai at the time of delivery. There was, however, no enduring arrangement in relation to the maintenance of the mother and the child. As it happens quite frequently, Mathai repudiated liability in that behalf. That drove the helpless girl to seek the aid of law. An unimaginative Magistrate dismissed her claim. The order was rightly reversed by the Sessions Court. It awarded a maintenance of Rs. 60/- for the child. There being no marriage, Santha could not claim the status of a wife. That should mean, in the existing state of affairs, that she should suffer privation, and sometimes even starvation, till the every end of her life.

(3.) Mathai took up the matter in revision before this Court in Crl. R. P. No. 507 of 1979. That was dismissed by order dated 31-3-1980. This Court held that the reasoning and conclusion of the Sessions Judge and the appreciation of evidence made by him were "quite sound and requires no interference in revision." A fervent appeal lastly made before the court for an added opportunity to adduce evidence was also rejected, by observing that Mathai bad "ample opportunities to give evidence" and that there was no good reason to accede to the request for remand.