GRIJESH KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs. ANSU DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 as well as learned Additional P.P. for the State. Petitioner/husband/father has challenged the order dated 22.12.2010 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gopalganj in Misc. Case No. 23F/2006 whereby and whereunder he had directed the petitioner/husband/father to pay Rs. 4,000/- for each child in lieu of maintenance to be effective till their majority from the date of filing of case while rejecting the prayer of O.P./applicant, Anshu Devi.

(2.) Manifold argument have been raised on behalf of petitioner while assailing the order impugned which are: (i) that there is no prayer on behalf of children for grant of maintenance, (ii) there has been denial on the part of the petitioner/O.P. with regard to parentage of the aforesaid two children, (iii) when the learned lower court itself rejected the version of the applicant then in that event, she was under obligation to disclose under what circumstances, she had conceived, (iv) the order impugned is suffering from vagueness on account of non-disclosure of approximate age of both children because of the fact that order was made effective till the majority of the children, (v) the evidence more particularly, father of Anshu Devi had not supported contention of Anshu Devi with regard to presence of these two children having begotten with the petitioner/O.P., (vi) the proceeding also is bad on the point of jurisdiction because the court concerned was not at all competent to entertain the petitioners pass orders. To buttress such contention, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon : JAGIR KAUR V/S JASWANT SINGH, 1963 AIR(SC) 1521, VIJAY KUMAR PRASAD V/S STATE OF BIHAR, 2004 5 SCC 196.

(3.) While controverting the arguments so raised on behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted on behalf of O.P. No. 2 that for the purpose of asking for maintenance of the minor children they are not to be impleaded or arrayed as parties. It has also been submitted that that minor children should not be left on vagrancy in the background of dispute of parentage amongst their parents for that the petitioner may seek, if so advised, by filing a declaration suit on this very score and till then the maintenance amount granted by the court below will remain enforceable. Learned counsel for the O.P. also supported the view by citing decisions,NANOO MAL SAXENA V/S STATE, 1979 CrLJ 306,SHASHI BHUSHAN ROY V/S STATE OF BIHAR, 2005 2 PLJR 16 , BHABANI PRASAD JENA V/S CONVENOR SECRETARY, ORISSA STATE COMMISSION FOR WOMEN & ANR, 2010 8 SCC 633.