LAKHBIR SINGH Vs. KUMARI VEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed with a prayer for quashing the two impugned orders, one passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, on November 5, 1983 and other confirming the said order, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, on March 12, 1984, in Revision.

(2.) THE Courts below have ordered the payment of Rs. 100/- per month as maintenance allowance under section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, to Kumari Veena respondent who has been found to be the illegitimate daughter of the petitioner born from her mother Taro, with whom the petitioner had illicit relations for 13/14 years. The petitioner had executed an agreement on October 9, 1968, undertaking to pay Rs. 200/- per month by way of maintenance to Taro and also to maintain her in his house as his wife. The petitioner kept the respondent and her mother in a separate accommodation in village Akhlaspur, as he was himself a married man having children. The respondent was born on August 5, 1970 and was admitted in a school in the village. The name of the petitioner was mentioned as the father of the respondent in the school records. Birth Certificate Exhibit 1 has also been producein this behalf. The Courts below after considering the evidence produced by the parties came to the conclusion that the respondent was the illegitimate child of the petitioner.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to place reliance upon certain observations contained in Raghavan Pillai v. Gourikutty Amma and another, AIR 1960 Kerala 119. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law enunciated in the said authority, but the appreciation and assessment of evidence in the present case renders the authority, i.e. Kunden Singh and others v. Hardan Singh, AIR 1953 Allahabad 501, is distinguishable on facts. As against these, the learned counsel for the respondent has cited Mayandi Asari and others v. Sami Asari, AIR 1933 Madras 44, in which it was held that when after considering the matter the Court believes that there was no access or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought in the circumstance of the particular case to act upon the supposition that it existed, non-assess may be considered to have been proved.