SONIA SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the applicants to quash the order dtd. 20/7/2022 passed by Principal Judge Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, in Case No. 555 of 2015 under Sec. 125(6) Cr.P.C. and direct the opposite party no. 2 to pay the interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.30,000.00 per month (Rs.20,000.00 to the applicant no.1-wife and Rs.10,000.00 to applicant no.2-daughter) and also direct the Trial Court to take all necessary steps immediately to enforce the orders dtd. 27/3/2018 and 24/9/2019 for conducting the D.N.A. test of opposite party no.2 for ascertaining his biological paternity of the applicant no. 2.

(2.) In brief, facts of the case are that the opposite party no.2 by creating a deception that he was widower whose wife expired 8 years ago had solemnized a second marriage with applicant no. 1 through Arya Samaj rituals on 19/2/2006 and from their cohabitation applicant no.2 was born on 14/1/2007. Later on, when it revealed that wife of opposite party no.2 namely Smt. Mamta Sharma was alive, he stated that he will convince his wife and children born from first wife then he will introduce the applicant in his home. Resultantly, an F.I.R. dtd. 15/9/2007 under Sec. 494 I.P.C. has been lodged by the applicant against her husband in which charges have been framed. But due to scarcity of basic resources causing difficulty in survival and living with comfort with her new daughter and due to complete dependence on her brothers, the applicant wife had moved application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. On 22/7/2015 for seeking maintenance but due to dilatory tactics of the husband in deciding the aforesaid application and refusal from giving not even a penny, the wife was constrained to move an application under Sec. 125(3) Cr.P.C. for getting interim maintenance for salvage and survival of her daughter and herself.

(3.) The opposite party no.2 in reply to the aforesaid applications, had flagrantly claimed that he was neither a biological father nor has adopted the applicant no.2 and there was no marriage ever solemnized with the applicant no. 1. Hence, he is not bound to maintain an stranger. Surprisingly, simultaneously he is also baldly emphasizing that he is a pauper person with no source of income. Opposite party no. 2 is mentioned as father of applicant no. 2 in her every document from birth certificate to school admission form and I-card. There are genuine photographs from which it is tangible that opposite party no.2 is a husband of the applicant no.1 and father of applicant no.2. Due to flagrant denial by opposite party no.2 as husband of applicant no.1 and biological father of applicant no.2, the applicant no. 1 moved an application dtd. 27/3/2018 for conducting D.N.A. test profiling and identification test to establish the paternity of her daughter as opposite party no. 2 is the biological father of her daughter, applicant no.2. Initially the opposite party no.2 had given consent to give her blood sample for D.N.A. identification. On 5/8/2019 the opposite party no.2 was directed to deposit the requisite amount fee for D.N.A. testing but he filed recall application which was rejected by the Trial Court on 24/2/2019.