MD MAHASIN SK Vs. SAYEDA KHATUN BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.6.98 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Murshidabad in Criminal Motion No. 70 of 1996 thereby dismissing the motion and affirming the judgment and order dated 13.11.95 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Berhampore in M. R. Case No. 14 of 1994 under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. allowing maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month for the illegitimate child of opposite party Sayeda Khatun Bibi and giving effect order of the maintenance amount from 10.1.94 till attainment of majority of the said child.

(2.) Facts of the case, as it appears from the materials-on-record and the lower Court record is that, the opposite party Sayeda Khatun Bibi filed an application under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. before the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate (in short SDJM), Berhampore, Murshidabad praying for maintenance for her minor son Rehesan AH which was registered as M.R. Case No. 14/94 and it was transferred to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Berhampore for disposal. In the said application it was mentioned that she was engaged as a maid servant by the opposite party (present petitioner). After some days of working the present petitioner gave a proposal to her for co-habitation with her which she refused. The petitioner thereafter promised to marry her, and started co-habitation with her and lived like husband and wife. The opposite party subsequently became pregnant and she stated the said fact to petitioner and told him to marry her, but the petitioner refused to marry her and drove her out of his house. She then took shelter in her parents house and gave birth to a son on 11.7.92 corresponding to 26th Shravan, 1399 B.S. and the said child was aged about one year five months when she filed the application under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. for maintenance of the said child against this petitioner claiming the child as the illegitimate child of this petitioner. It was her further allegation that petitioner being a rich businessman having monthly income of more than Rs. 8,000/- per month did not take any information of the child and did not give any maintenance to the said child. The petitioner as opposite party in the Court below contested the matter by filing written objection and dented all the material averments of the application under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. He contended inter alia that, he is a reputed and respectable person of that area having business, of fertiliser. For the purpose of his business he used to stay at Shialmara and she was residing there with his wife and children. As his wife was in need of a mind servant, the opposite party was engaged to work as mind servant in his house. The opposite party's house at Shialmara was adjacent to his house and after doing the works as maid servant she used to return back to her house. He had no occasion to meet with the opposite party and even had no time to talk with her for his heavily engaged business work. The allegation of the opposite party that he had sexual intercourse with her as a result of which she became pregnant and gave birth to the child are absolutely false and baseless and is an attempt to tarnish his fame and reputation. The opposite party is a woman of loose character and easy virtue and she had illicit relation with several youths of the village. The opposite party has instituted the case making false and frivolous allegation against him.

(3.) It appears that after the end of the trial in the said M.R. Case learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Berhampore by his order dated 13.11.95 held that the present petitioner was the father of the child namely Rehesan Ali and he is bound to maintain his illegitimate child. The learned Magistrate accordingly allowed the prayer of the present opposite party and granted maintenance for the minor child @ Rs.500/- per month giving effect of the maintenance order from date of filing of the application i.e. from 10.1.94 till the child attains majority. It is evident that challenging the said order the present petitioner preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge at Murshidabad and it was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Murshidabad by his order dated 5.6.98 in criminal motion No. 70 of 1996. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the motion and affirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Berhampore.