PREMASUNDARI Vs. R NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first revision petitioner is the mother of the second revision petitioner who is a minor. THE first petitioner filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance for herself and for her minor daughter. THE said petition was dismissed by the learned II Additional Family Court Judge at Chennai. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred this criminal revision petition.

(2.) THE case of the first petitioner is that she married the respondent on 20.11.1991 and after the marriage, both of them resided at No.18, Thommayappan Street, Royapettah, Madras. THE respondent herein is an Advocate. Ex.P.1 is the marriage invitation. Out of the wedlock, the first revision petitioner delivered a female child on 08.08.1994 and the name of the child is Vanathi. Ex.P.2 is the birth certificate of Vanathi. After the birth of the child, the respondent herein deserted the first petitioner and he did not support the family. Ex.P.3 is the progress report of the minor child Vanathi who was the student of third standard. Ex.P.4 copy of the order passed by the Principal Family Court, Madras in M.C.No.77 of 1988 dated 11.06.1990. As per the said order, the first revision petitioner filed her application claiming maintenance from her first husband one Duraikannan and the said Duraikannan had obtained an ex-party decree in O.S.No.7233 of 1988 for declaration that the marriage was null and void. THEreafter, a compromise was entered into between both parties and on the basis of the compromise, the maintenance petition was withdrawn by the petitioner.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that the trial Court after accepting that the marriage between the first petitioner and one Duraikannan was declared null and void, failed to consider the fact that the first petitioner got married to the respondent on 20.11.1991 and the trial Court rejected Ex.P.1 merely for the reason that the printers' name is not found in Ex.P.1 marriage invitation. THE learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even if the maintenance is not granted to the first petitioner, the maintenance should have been awarded to the second petitioner who is the child of the respondent and Ex.P.2, birth certificate contains the name of the respondent as father of the child. THE learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the trial Court had observed that there was no scientific test and the first petitioner filed an application for DNA test, but it was not ordered. THE learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the first petitioner and the child are ready to subject themselves for the DNA test. THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that now some additional documents are available such as pregnancy medical record issued by the hospital, birth record and the community certificate of the second petitioner and a xerox copy of the family ration card which may be taken into consideration for deciding the issue.