DURAIRAJU Vs. NEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order made by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kovilpatti, under Section 488 Cri. P. C. in M. C. No. 42 of 1974 on his file directing to pay a sum of Rs. 30 per mensem to the second respondent herein (aged 1 year 3 months) as maintenance from the date of his order and the said amount is to be paid to the first respondent herein, the mother and guardian of the second respondent.

(2.) ACCORDING to the first respondent, the revision petitioner married her and the second respondent was born to him out of the lawful wedlock. The first respondent filed the petition claiming maintenance for herself and for the minor child, the second respondent, on the ground that the revision petitioner has refused to maintain them. The first respondent who was the petitioner before the trial court examined two witnesses including herself. P. W. 1 is a clerk in Kovilpatti Municipality in charge of maintenance of birth and death registers. He was examined to file Ex. P. 1, the intimation received by the Municipality from the Government Hospital, Kovilpatti, and Ex. P. 2 a copy of the birth extract made on the basis of Ex, P. 1, which shows that a male child was born on 4-2-1973 to one Neela and Duraipandi. The trial court after assessing the evidence came to the conclusion that there was no valid marriage between the first respondent and the revision petitioner, but held that the second respondent is the illegitimate child of the revision petitioner through the first respondent. Therefore, the learned Magistrate awarded maintenance as stated supra.

(3.) THE revision petitioner challenges in this petition the finding of the trial court that the second respondent is the illegitimate child of the revision petitioner through the first respondent. As the first respondent is not challenging the finding of the trial court that there was no valid marriage, there is no need to go into that issue. The only issue that stands for consideration is whether the second respondent was borne to the first respondent through the petitioner.