KALYANI Vs. PRABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated 17.06.2008 made in Crl.RC.No.69/2006 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC II, Tiruchirappalli, setting aside the order dated 20.3.2006 made in MC.No.233/2003 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli.

(2.) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate awarded maintenance to the Petitioners, who are the wife and minor son, at the rate of Rs.500/- to the wife and Rs.250/- for the minor son and directed the Respondent husband to pay the maintenance from the date of the petition. The Respondent preferred a revision before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge against the said order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The revisional court set aside the order passed by the Trial Court, remanded the matter back to the Trial Court and directed the parties to subject themselves to DNA Test in order to find out the paternity of the minor son, 2nd petitioner herein. Aggrieved against the said order, this criminal revision petition has been filed by the wife. Pending the revision, the minor son was impleaded as the 2nd petitioner represented by his mother/the 1st petitioner, by order dated 27.8.2012 of this court.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr.Veera Kathiravan, the learned counsel for the Respondent contended that the Respondent having disputed the marriage as well as the paternity of the minor son, it is unsafe to act on the uncorroborated testimony of the 1st Petitioner and in the absence of any independent evidence being offered by the Petitioners, the revisional court was right in directing the parties to undergo DNA Test only to find out the paternity of the 2nd Petitioner. The learned counsel would further submit that when the question at issue before the revisional court was as to whether the Respondent is the father of the 2nd Petitioner, it is prima facie improper to accept, without corroboration, the mere statement on oath of the mother, who asserts the paternity and the burden is heavily upon the 1st Petitioner to establish the paternity of the child and to show that the Respondent, from whom she claimed maintenance for the child, was the father of the child.