KRISHNA CHANDRA MAHATO Vs. ALI MAHATO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the opposite parties.

(2.) PETITIONER has filed this revision application against the judgment dated 27.04.2010 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chaibasa in Miscellaneous Case No. 07 of 2007 whereby the court below has directed the Petitioner to pay Rs. 2500/ - as maintenance to the opposite party No. 2, Minor Kumari Chandmani Mahato till she is married. The order of maintenance was directed to be paid from the date of application dated 05.05.2007. Besides that, a sum of Rs. 4000/ - has also been allowed by way of expenses of the proceeding. The mode of payment of the maintenance allowance is that the same shall be paid by 15th day of every month positively.

(3.) IN this case, I am not concerned with the issue as to whether the opposite party No. 1 is a legally married wife of the Petitioner or not, as no argument has been advanced on this very point by the Petitioner counsel. The main issue in this case is regarding grant of maintenance to opposite party No. 2, minor daughter. It has come in the impugned order that the applicants have examined four witnesses in support of their case. On the other hand, Petitioner has examined three witnesses including himself. P.W. 3 is the applicant No. 1 herself, She has very specifically stated that Chandmani is her daughter and her father is Krishna Chandra Mahato, the present Petitioner. She has stated in her evidence that the Petitioner was already married but as he had no son, he assured that he would marry applicant No. 1 and on this assurance, Petitioner started visiting her house and she became pregnant. She has accepted that the Petitioner, no doubt was behaving like her husband but never married her. She has stated that due to cohabitation a daughter, applicant No. 2, was born. Since, the Petitioner did not marry her, a Panchayti was held in the village in which the Petitioner did not appear. The applicant No. 1 then went to the house of the Petitioner where she was assaulted and driven out for which the applicant No. 1 lodged a criminal case against the Petitioner. P.W.2 has also stated in his evidence that the Petitioner, on the promise of marriage, co -habited with applicant No. 1 as a result of which applicant No. 2, minor daughter was born. Likewise, other witnesses examined on behalf of the applicant No. 1, have supported the case of the applicants. Applicant No. 1 has also filed certain documents i.e. birth certificate of applicant -opposite party No. 2 issued by Deputy Superintendent of Sadar Hospital in which the name of the father of applicant No. 2 is mentioned as Krishna Chandra Mahato, the Petitioner. This document has been issued on 24.05.2006 and the present case has been filed on 05.05.2007. Therefore, it can not be said that the said document is forged or manufactured only for the purpose to prove the case of the applicants. The said document has been issued by the Competent Authority.