PAVATHAL Vs. PERIASAMY GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these revisions arise over the some dispute between the same parties involving a common question of law and are therefore, disposed off together by a common order.

(2.) These revisions challenge two different orders by the Sessions Judge, Erode allowing two different revisions at the instance of the respondent herein, and setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate directing under Sec.13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) registration of the birth of a male child to the petitioner and the respondent herein on 20.10.1957 and the death of that child on 22.10.1957.

(3.) It is the common case that the petitioner and the respondent were married in 1956. After living together for some-time, they got separated due to misunderstandings and the petitioner filed O.S.421/70 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Erode against the respondent seeking maintenance. She also filed O.S.64/85 in the same Court for partition of her share of the family properties. According to the petitioner, a male child was born to them on 20.10.1957 that child lived for 2 days and died on 22.10.1957. As class I heir of her dead son she was entitled to his share. The respondent denied the birth of any male child and also its death. Since, neither the birth nor the death of the Child was registered with the authorities under Sec.13(1) of the Act, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.14/85 for an order of the learned Magistrate for registering the birth of the male child as born on 20.10.1957 and she filed Crl.M.P.No.15/85 in the same court for an order of the learned Magistrate for registering the death of the above child as died on 22.10.1957. The Learned Magistrate caused publication of the two petitions to be made and after verifying the correctness of the birth and death and examining the petitioner, ordered both the petitioners, and directed necessary entries to be made in the register of births and deaths. The respondent who later on came to know about the two orders, filed Criminal Revision Case No.5/86 challenging the order for registration of the birth and Criminal Revision Case No.6/86 challenging the order for registration of the death of the child. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both parties and for the reasons mentioned in his order, allowed both the revisions, cancelling the order of the learned Magistrate for registering the birth as well as the death of the child. Aggrieved with the orders in Crl.R.C.5/86 the petitioner has filed Crl.R.C.510/ 86 and aggrieved with the order in Crl.R.C.6/86 the petitioner has filed Crl.R.C.No.512/86.