PAWAN KUMAR Vs. MAMTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 28. 12. 2004 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandla in M. Cr. C. No. 272/03, whereby the application filed by respondents under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. has been partly allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month to respondent No. 2.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the applicants/respondents (hereinafter referred as respondents) filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. before the concerned Magistrate wherein it was averred that respondent No. 1 Mamta was alone in her house on the day of incident i. e. to say in the month of Baishakh in the year 1999. The petitioner/non-applicant (hereafter referred as the petitioner) entered in her house, asked for a glass of water and when she went inside the room he closed the door and committed forcible sexual intercourse and assured to perform marriage with her. He had been committing such sexual intercourse with her at the intervals of 2-4 days and continued the same for near about 1 years as a result of which she conceived. Thereafter he refused to marry with her. Panchayat was convened but he did not turn up in Panchayat, therefore, she lodged the report at police station Bamhani on 05. 11. 2000. On the basis of which a criminal case was registered against the petitioner. He was prosecuted for the offence under Section 376 of I. P. C. but ultimately he was acquitted from the charge but the Court observed in its judgment that respondent No. 1 conceived as a result of the sexual intercourse by the petitioner as a result thereof respondent No. 2 Swati was born and thus on the basis of her being illegitimate daughter of the petitioner the application was filed claiming maintenance for herself and for her daughter Swati. The averments were also made that the respondents are unable to maintain themselves whereas the petitioner has sufficient means to support them. Hence petitioner be directed to pay maintenance to the respondents.

(3.) THE petitioner filed the written reply denying most of the averments made by the respondents in the application mainly contending that he has not committed sexual intercourse with respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 2 is not his illegitimate daughter, therefore, he is not liable to pay the maintenance to the respondents. Further it was also contended that he has no any means to earn and he is dependent upon his father, therefore, he is not capable to pay the maintenance to the respondents.