KUNNUMMAL SALEEM Vs. NASIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforecaptioned R.P.(F.C.) No.1 /2017 is directed as against the impugned final order dated 20.08.2016 rendered by the Family Court, Tirur in M.C.No.421/2013 filed by the 1 st respondent herein, whereby the revision petitioner herein (respondent therein/husband) has been directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent herein (petitioner therein/wife).

(2.) Heard Sri.K.P.Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner (husband) and Sri.O.V.Maniprasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (wife). One of the main contentions raised by the revision petitioner to oppose the plea for maintenance is that the respondent/wife is not entitled for the maintenance as she was having illicit affair with another man and that she got pregnant in the process and she has delivered twins, a boy and a girl and that the petitioner is not the father of the children and that the said children has been born in her sexual relationship with her paramour etc. Further, the petitioner has got a case that he has pronounced the valid 'Talaq' on 05.09.2012. The defence of the respondent herein was to the effect that it was the uncle of the petitioner herein had impregnated her by committing rape on her in her matrimonial home and that a sessions case is pending in respect of the said rape offence in which the petitioner's uncle, one K.C.Faizal has been arrayed as the accused.

(3.) Further, she would contend that her pregnancy had happened at her matrimonial home where the mother of the petitioner herein has also been residing with her. The mother of the petitioner herein has given evidence as RW2, wherein she has noticed the pregnancy during 8 month and when she enquired with the respondent herein, she has stated names of several persons for causing pregnancy, whereas the respondent herein projected a case that it is only in order to save the abovesaid K.C.Faizal, who is the brother of the mother of the petitioner herein that there was compulsion from the part of her mother-in-law to state the names of other persons. It appears that the abovesaid K.C.Faizal has filed a civil suit as O.S.No.367/2013 before the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi seeking for a declaration that in fact he is not the biological father of the abovesaid children born to the respondent herein. The Family Court has ordered that the petitioner herein is liable to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent herein. The abovesaid final order of the Family Court has been rendered on 20.08.2016. It appears that the abovesaid civil suit filed by Sri.K.C.Faizal was then pending before the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi and based on the orders passed by the said civil court, the DNA testing was done by the Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology, Thiruvananthapuram to ascertain as to whether the abovesaid K.C.Faizal is the biological father of the abovesaid twin children born to the respondent herein. Now, it appears that the said scientific institution, Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology has issued Annexure-A1 expert report dated 07.11.2016, wherein it has been opined that the DNA test preformed on the exhibit referred to therein is sufficient to conclude that the abovesaid K.C.Faizal is not the biological father of the abovesaid children born to the respondent herein whereas the respondent herein is the mother of the said children.