DHULKI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference comes on the report of the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, dated 19. 12. 58, whereby he has recommended to this Court that. the order passed by Munsif-Magistrate Salumber dated 30. 8. 58 directing Mst. Dhulki to pay allowance for the maintenance of a girl aged about 3 months should be set aside.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the points involved in the reference, it would be proper to state briefly the facts which have given rise to it. It appears from the perusal of the record of the Magistrate's court that on the 30th Nov. 1957 a girl aged about 1-1/2 months was found lying in a jungle by P. Ws. Savji and Punja. P. W. Punja presented that child before the Gram Panchayat Semari; whereupon P. W. Kishanlal Serpanch handed over the said child to the care of P. W. 3 Welki and reported the matter to the police. After investigation, the police came to the conclusion that the child was born of Mst. Dhulki and that Mst. Dhulki had deserted that child since it was illegitimate. Mst. Dhulki was prosecuted for committing an offence u/s 317 I. P. C. The Munsif-Magistrate Salu-mber, who made an inquiry into the case, discharged Mst. Dhulki of the said offence on 30. 1. 58. After about 12 days, he drew up another order on 13. 2. 58 and initiated proceedings against Mst. Dhulki under sec 488 Cr. P. C. , He also initiated proceedings against one Kamjida Who was suspected to be the father of that illegitimate child. Both Kamjida and Mst. Dhulki disowned the child as their own. The Magistrate, however, came to the conclusion that it was Mst. Dhulki, who had given birth to that child and so he directed her to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4/- p. m. for a period of 5 years, Rs. 5/- p. m. for the next 2 years and Rs. 6/- p. m. for the next 3 years. Kamjida was discharged of the liability to pay any maintenance for the child. Against the said order dated 30. 8. 58 Mst. Dhulki filed a revision application in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that it was not proved from the evidence on record if it was Mst. Dhulki who had given birth to that child, that the Magistrate had based his findings on conjectures, and, therefore, he has recommended that his order should be set aside