K VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. V DEVAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner challenging the order of maintenance awarded to the second respondent, illegitimate child of the petitioner herein by the learned Second Additional Family Court Judge, at Chennai in M.C. No.269 of 2001 by the judgment dated 22.12.2003.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of award of maintenance passed by the Family Court Judge is unsustainable in law as the learned Judge himself held that the first respondent has not proved the marriage between the revision petitioner and the first respondent. It is further contended that the learned Judge having held that the petitioner proved his marriage with one Vasanthi on 27.01.1982 and out of their wedlock children were also born to them and that in view of this specific finding of the learned Family Court Judge, the award of maintenance, even to the second respondent also, is not sustainable in law. It is contended that the first respondent has come forward with a false claim of maintenance.

(3.) IT is seen as per the records, the revision petitioner lived along with the first respondent as husband and wife which were very much evident from the documents produced before the Court under Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. As rightly held by the learned Family Court Judge that the photograph Ex.P4 showing the revision petitioner and the first respondent together in a wedding function and Ex.P6, the original Election Identity Card clearly shows that the revision petitioner and the first respondent lived together as husband and wife, though the marriage is not a valid one in view of the fact that the revision petitioner was already got married as early as in the year 1982 with one Vasanthi. The yet another vital document to establish the relationship between the revision petitioner and the first respondent is the Birth Certificate in respect of the second respondent under Ex.P5 dated 09.03.1991, wherein the name of the revision petitioner is mentioned as father and as such the first respondent succeeded in establishing the fact that the second respondent was born out of the relationship between the revision petitioner and the first respondent. This Court is also constrained to state that the learned Family Court Judge has rightly held that the first respondent is not entitled for any maintenance as she is illegitimate wife but as far as the second respondent is concerned though the second respondent is illegitimate child, she is entitled to get maintenance from the revision petitioner under Section 125, Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is also pertinent to note that the revision petitioner is getting reasonable income from his profession as Archagar as well as from his business namely Real Estate and Finance and as such there is no difficulty for the revision petitioner to pay the maintenance amount to the second respondent. IT is needless to state that even the amount of Rs.800/- awarded as maintenance to the second respondent itself is a meagre amount considering the cost of living and other educational expenses. Therefore, this Court is not able to find any infirmity or illegality warranting interference of this Court in the order of award of maintenance passed by the second Additional Family Court Judge, Chennai.