S THANGIAH Vs. THANGAMANI ALEX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the alleged father of the respondents, who are minors represented by their mother Vasuki. Vasuki filed M.C. No. 121 of 1987 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, claiming maintenance for herself as the wife of the petitioner and for her children, the respondents, alleging that they were born out of the wedlock. Vasuki put forth her case on the basis that she married the petitioner initially in 1975 and again in 1977 after conversion to Hinduism. The two respondents are said to have been born on 18-8-1977 and 21-7-1979 respectively. To substantiate her case. Vasuki apart from examining herself as P.W. 1, examined one Pauldoss as P.W. 2 and Natarajan as P.W. 3. She also filed Exts. P. 1 to P. 14 out which Exts. P. 1, P. 5, P. 10, P. 12, P. 13 and P. 14, may be relevant for consideration in this revision. The petitioner examined himself as R.W. 1 and filed Ext. D. 1 the deposition of Vasuki, in S.C. No. 14 of 1975 on the file of the Court of Session, Pondicherry.

(2.) The case of the petitioner before the Trial Court was that he did not marry Vasuki at any point of time and the respondents were not born to him, He admitted that in or about 1982 he allowed Vasuki and her children, the respondents to reside in a portion of his house as tenants. Excepting humanitarian consideration, arising out of which he rendered some help to Vasuki and her children, he had not further connection with them. The trial Magistrate, on an appreciation of the evidence adduced before him found that Vasuki had Dot established her marriage with the petitioner, to entitle her to claim maintenance. However, the trial Magistrate took the view that the respondents were liable to be maintained by the petitioner in view of the paternity having been proved through Exts, P. 5, P. 12 and P. 13 coupled with the alleged admission of the petitioner that even from 1977 he had taken Vasuki to his house and kept her there.

(3.) Thiru V. Manoharan, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial Magistrate has misread the evidence about the alleged admission of the petitioner having kept Vasuki in his house from 1977. He would further contend that Exts. P. 5, P. 12 and P. 13 cannot establish paternity in law, and the order of maintenance made by the Trial Court will have to be necessarily set aside.