KALYANABASAHEB JADHAV Vs. ABASAHEB VITHALRAO JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL applicant in Miscellaneous Application no. 67/1982, on the file of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambad, has come to this Court to challenge the order, passed by the Additional sessions Judge, Jalna, in Criminal Revision No. 64/1984, allowing the revision and setting aside the order of the lower Court granting maintenance to the applicant.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, facts giving rise to this revision, are as under-The applicant is a minor illegitimate child and his mother acting as a guardian has filed Miscellaneous Application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the present respondent and claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200 per month. The applicant claimed in the application that the applicant is a child aged about 45 days on the date of filing of the application, that since about 2 years before the filing of the applicant the present respondent and Asrabai-the mother of the applicant had illicit relations and the present respondent treated her as his wife, that the said illicit relationship resulted in pregnancy of Asrabai, that, however, since the seventh month of pregnancy, the relations between Asrabai and the present respondent become strained and the present respondent started neglecting her ; that the petitioner was born to Asrabai out of the said relationship and, therefore, the present respondent was bound to maintain the petitioner as he is his illegitimate child ; that the petitioner is not able to maintain himself and the present respondent has sufficient means to maintain him as he has got 50 acres of fertile land and earns an income of rs. 50,000 per year and in spite of that he refused to provide maintenance to him, therefore, he was entitled to claim maintenance and accordingly claimed Rs. 200 per month as maintenance. The present respondent filed his say (Ex. 8) and denied the allegations made in the application. The present respondent denied that he had illicit relations with Asrabai or that she had conceived from him. He also denied that he was the father of the petitioner and, therefore, contended that he was not responsible to provide any maintenance to the petitioner. According to him, as he is a political worker and was member of Panchayat Samiti, Ambad, at the instance of the persons, who are on enimical terms with him in politics, the present application has been filed to defame him and, therefore, the said application should be dismissed.

(3.) ON the strength of evidence, led by the parties, the learned magistrate concluded that the petitioner had proved that he is the illegitimate child of the present respondent and that the present repondent had illicit relations with Asrabai. The learned Magistrate also found that the present respondent neglected to maintain the petitioner, who is his illegitimate child, though he has sufficient means to maintain him and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to claim maintenance. The learned Magistrate also found that the petitioner was entitled to maintenance at the rate of rs. 75 per month, and accordingly ordered the present respondent to give rs. 75 per month as maintenance to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present respondent filed revision application No. 64/84 in the Sessions Court at Jalna. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, jalna, allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of maintenance granted in favour of the present petitioner negativing all the findings of the lower Court. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner has come to this court and has filed the present writ petition