LAXMANJI HARIJI HADIYOL Vs. DHANPAL DHANUBEN SOLANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Viral Dave on behalf of the petitioner, learned Advocate Mr. Tushar Chaudhary on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Maithili D. Mehta on behalf of respondent no.3- State.

(2.) By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges orders passed by the learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palanpur dtd. 14/9/2007 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 67 of 2002 whereby the learned Magistrate had been pleased to grant application preferred by the respondents no. 1 and 2 herein for grant of maintenance and whereas the petitioner herein had been directed to pay an amount of Rs.500.00 to both the respondents no. 1 and 2 respectively.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr. Dave would submit that in the application preferred by respondents no. 1 and 2 praying for maintenance the principal contention raised by the present petitioner was that the petitioner and mother of the respondents no. 1 and 2 herein had divorced in the year 1988 and whereas thereafter they had not lived together and thus the paternity of the respondents no. 1 and 2 was disputed. Learned Advocate Mr. Dave would submit that while the petitioner and mother of respondents no. 1 and 2 had got married somewhere in the year 1981 and whereas a child named Alkaben had been born from the said marriage, approximately 6 years after the marriage mother of respondents no. 1 and 2 had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 30 of 1987 before the learned Magistrate, Palanpur inter alia seeking for being paid maintenance and whereas learned Advocate would submit that in such application a settlement in the nature of divorce had been arrived at on 6/1/1988 and based upon such settlement, the mother of respondents no. 1 and 2 had submitted a pursis for withdrawal of the application which had been granted by the learned Magistrate vide order of the same date i.e. 6/1/1988. Learned Advocate Mr. Dave would submit that the petitioner and mother of respondents no. 1 and 2 having divorced in the year 1988, they had not cohabited thereafter, therefore, the children i.e. respondents no. 1 and 2 were not belonging to the petitioner.