BHAGAVATHI KAVUNGAL MUHAMMEDALI Vs. ERAPPARAMBAN SAINABA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this revision petition assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr. P. C obliging him to pay maintenance @ rs. 500/- per mensem to the 2nd petitioner.

(2.) MARRIAGE between the mother of the claimant/minor and the petitioner is admitted. That the claimant/minor was born during the currency of the matrimony between the spouses is also admitted. The husband took up a plea that he was employed abroad and there was no opportunity of access for him to his wife/mother of the claimant at the relevant time when the child could have been conceived. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The mother of the claimant examined herself as pw1. Ext. P1 birth certificate was produced and marked. That shows the petitioner to be the father of the child. The petitioner was not available to tender evidence. He examined his father as rw1 to prove his theory of non access.

(3.) THE learned Judge of the Family Court initially found that the conclusive presumption of paternity under Section 112 of the Evidence Act has not been dislodged at all and proceeded to pass an order granting maintenance to the claimant/child.