SMITA HALARNKAR Vs. MAHENDRA HALARNKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a child born on 10/05/1999 to Smt. Gokula Fadte through her said mother, claimed maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month on the ground that the respondent who was distantly related to her mother was religiously married to her but had refused to register a civil marriage. The said application was allowed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 27/10/2006. That order came to be set aside in revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 31/08/2007.

(2.) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was of the opinion, and in my view, rightly that the failure to prove the marriage between the petitioner's mother and the respondent was no ground to discard her entire evidence. That is in tune with what the Apex Court has stated in Sumitra Devi (infra).

(3.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the other hand, concluded that this was not a case to draw adverse inference against the respondent for not stepping in the witness box to give his evidence because it was for the plaintiff to satisfy the Court prima facie that the plaintiff had made out a case and since the petitioner had failed to prove that the petitioner was the child begotten out of the cohabitation with the respondent, no adverse inference could be drawn against the respondent.