RADHAKRISHNA NAIDU Vs. MINOR RAVI ALIAS RAVICHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision is by one Radhakrishna Naidu against whom one minor Ravi alias Ravichandran through his guardian mother Vedavalli has filed a petition under Sec.125, Crl.P.C. alleging that the said Radhakrishnan, who will be hereinafter referred to as the respondent, has married his mother Vedavalli as his second wife and he (petitioner) was born to them and his father was maintaining both his mother and himself for sometime but he refused to do so for about four years now. His mother has no means of income excepting doing cooly work. Therefore she is not able to maintain the petitioner. Hence his father shall be directed to pay a sum of Rs.250 per mensem to him for maintenance.

(2.) IN the counter statement the respondent denied that he ever married Vedavalli and that the petitioner is his son. He contended that Vedavalli is living with her son the petitioner in the house of the respondent as a tenant. She did not pay rent and therefore he filed a petition against her for eviction. The matter is now pending in the High Court. Thinking of escaping from the case somehow and grabbing the house as her own she has now resorted to file this false petition alleging that the petitioner was born to the respondent through her. Vedavalli is a woman of bad character and she had illicit intimacy with many persons, and there is absolutely no connection between the respondent and Vedavalli.

(3.) IN those circumstances, may be the petitioner was illegitimately born to the respondent but it may also be that he was not born to the respondent but born to somebody else. It is quite possible that since when a child is born information has to be given as to its paternity, Vedavalli might have given the respondent's name even though he was not really the person responsible for the birth of the child. Hence on the basis of Ex.P-1. it cannot be said that the petitioner was born to the respondent.