ABDUL RAHIMANKUTTY Vs. AYSHA BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition arises from proceedings under S.488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The first respondent applied on behalf of her minor child, the second respondent, for an order of maintenance against the revision petitioner. Holding that the second respondent was the child of the revision petitioner, the learned Magistrate awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month.

(2.) The respondents case may be briefly stated. The first respondent, an unmarried young woman, was residing in the house of the petitioner for two years from Mithunam 1129 to Makaram 1131, working as a domestic servant. During this time, she cohabited with the petitioner and became pregnant. When she told the petitioner about this and requested him to marry her, he asked her not to divulge it to anybody and he even threatened to kill her if she gave rise to any talk. Subsequently he got her married to Pw. 6 on 25-6 - 1131. Within a few days, Pw. 6 discovered that she was pregnant and he drove her out of his house on 7-7-1131. The second respondent was born on 12-10-1131/ 25-5-1956. As the petitioner refused to maintain the child, the petition under S.488 was filed on 13-7-1956.The petitioner filed a written statement denying all the allegations in the petition. He denied the paternity of the child and also that the first respondent was a servant in his house.The first respondent examined six witnesses besides herself. Believing the respondents case, the order for maintenance was passed.

(3.) Two points were raised on behalf of the revision petitioner, namely, (1) that in view of the fact that the child was born within 280 days, after the alleged dissolution of the marriage of the first respondent to Pw. 6, the court below should have drawn the presumption under S.112 of the Evidence Act and held that Pw. 6 was the father of the child and (2) that the uncorroborated evidence of the first respondent should not have been acted upon.