RAJ KUMAR GUPTA Vs. REKHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 05.07.2001 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Jamshedpur in Misc Case No.23 of 2000 whereby, the interim maintenance Rs. 500.00 per month was granted to the minor daughter (Simran) of the opposite party, Rekha Devi.

(2.) Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel, for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the grounds that the opposite party's mother Rekha Devi was earlier married to one Tarsan Singh where after, it is alleged that she got married to the petitioner on 04.07.1998. It is averred that she gave birth to Simran, on 22.10.1998, within three months of the alleged marriage with the petitioner. That the petitioner has categorically stated that Simran is not his child but the trial court without appreciating the submissions and without holding any enquiry, for ascertaing the truth and the fact whether Simran was born out of said wedlock or not, has directed the petitioner to pay the interim maintenance. That the impugned order is not sustainable in law or on facts as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to bring on record that Simran, the daughter of opposite party, Rekha Devi was not born out of a valid marriage and neither the petitioner had any relationship with the opposite party.

(3.) Mr. Navneet Sahay, learned counsel, for the opposite party has submitted that even an illegitimate child is entitled to maintenance in terms of provisions of Sec. 125 of the Crimial P.C. He cited the decision reported in (2014) 1 SCC 188 in support of his contention. Learned counsel for the opposite party has further submitted that Simran, the daughter of opposite party was born within three months of the marriage, which was solemnized on 14.07.1998, which shows that the petitioner was well aware of the pregnancy accordingly inference can be drawn that he was the father of the said child namely, Simran. That the opposite party had filed Matrimonial Suit No.67 of 1999 in the Family Court, Jamshedpur for declaration of the marriage as nullity when she came to know that the petitioner's marriage was subsisting at the time of solemnization of her marriage with the petitioner. The suit was decreed and marriage was declared to be null and void. It has been contended that the impugned order is in accordance with the provisions of law and does not require any interference.