RAGHAVAN PILLAI Vs. GOURIKUTTY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition arises from an application made by respondents 1 and 2, mother and child, against the petitioner, alleging that he had married the first respondent in Karkadagam 1129 and that the second respondent was born in wedlock. The respondents alleged that the petitioner was cohabiting with the first respondent from Edavam 1129 and that the second respondent was born as a result of such union. On the allegation that the petitioner had abandoned the respondents from Makaram 1131 the respondents claimed maintenance for both.

(2.) The petitioner contended that the first respondent was the lawfully wedded wife of one Raghavan Pillai and that the marriage between them was subsisting. He denied the averments made in the petition that he cohabited with the petitioner or married her in Karkadagam 1129. The allegation regarding the paternity of the child was also denied. On the date of final hearing in the Trial Court, the first respondent withdrew her claim for maintenance for herself, in view of the subsistence of her marriage to Raghavan Pillai. The trial Magistrate held that the petitioner was the father of the second respondent and he awarded maintenance to the second respondent at the rate of Rs. 8/- per month from the date of the petition. The petitioner who unsuccessfully moved the District Magistrate in revision, has preferred this revision petition.

(3.) The main points urged on behalf of the petitioner are (1) that the courts below have not considered the presumption arising under S.112 of the Evidence Act and (2) that the decision is based on hearsay evidence.