PRADEEP KUMAR JENA Vs. TRINATH JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ application and the Criminal Revision were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment

(2.) The short question that arises for consideration in the writ application is whether under Section 125(1)(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), the expression father has any limitation therein or would include the opposite party No.1 who alleges that the petitioner is his illegitimate son. The aforesaid question arises under the following circumstances. Opposite party No.1 filed an application under Section 125(1)(d) of the Code claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500.00 per month. It was averred in the application that he is the father of the petitioner and petitioner was given birth by a lady called Sunafula, who voluntarily left the house of opposite party No.1. The said opposite party No.1 took adequate care of the petitioner so long as he was in service. But after his retirement, he is unable to maintain himself and even though the petitioner as son is liable to maintain opposite party No.1, but he has neglected to maintain opposite party No.1 and, therefore, opposite party No.1 claimed maintenance under Section 125 of the Code.

(3.) The petitioner filed an objection stating therein that his mother Sunafula was the legally married wife of opposite party No.1 and in fact the marriage was solemnized in the year 1960. It was further alleged that while opposite party No.1 was living with petitionerTs mother as husband and wife, said opposite party No.1 developed intimacy with one Ashalata and when petitioners mother protested, he drove her away and it is the petitionerTs mother who took lot of pains in getting the petitioner educated. It was also averred in the objection that opposite party No.1 draws his pension regularly and is able to maintain himself and, therefore, the application under section 125 of the Code is not maintainable.