Criminal Revision Application No.35 of 2008

17th February, 2011

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. S. S. GODBOLE
Respondent Counsel: Mrs. SUHASINI DESHPANDE,Mr. ANAND FULZELE

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- This Revision has been preferred in view of Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, whereby the judgment and order dated 12.11.2007 passed by the learned Judge Family Court No.2, Nagpur in Petition No.E/448/1999 filed under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is under challenge. It appears that the petition was filed by Shubham Murali Luderkar (minor : aged about five years) through mother guardian Sau. Chhotibai Murli Luderkar claiming amount of maintenance from Murli Bansi Luderkar, on the ground that the revision-applicant herein had refused and neglected to maintain his son. After considering the evidence led on record, the learned trial Judge of the Family Court No.2 Nagpur was pleased to the order the present revision-applicant to pay a sum of Rs.800/- per month towards maintenance to his son Subham with effect from 25.11.1999 as also cost in the sum of Rs.2,000/- payable to mother of the child.

2. It is the contention on behalf of the revision-applicant that he had challenged paternity of the child in the Family Court and evidence was led in respect thereof, but it was not considered. According to learned Advocate for the applicant, the name of the father of the child in the record of the Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur in Form No.7 was mentioned as Shri. Ramesh Manahare and, therefore, the trial Court was not justified in awarding the maintenance amount against the revision-applicant, in view of the evidence of the Government Medical Hospital. As against this contention, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the oral evidence was led in which it was clarified by Smt. Chhotibai Murli Luderkar, during her deposition and in the course of her cross-examination, that during her pregnancy she took treatment from Indira Gandhi Hospital, Corporation Colony, Nagpur as well as the Government Medical College, Nagpur. For delivery she was admitted in Government Medical College Nagpur by the present revision-applicant in the year 1994. She had not mentioned the name of the father of the child to anybody in Government Medical College, Nagpur, but it was revision-applicant who had mentioned the name of the father of the child (wrongly). It is, therefore, submitted that the revision-applicant cannot take advantage of his own wrong in mentioning wrong name in Government Medical College. Further, it is submitted that the revision-applicant had in the course of his evidence recorded on 12.10.2007 before the Family Court, Nagpur clearly admitted that he knew Chhotibai. She was his neighbour and he had never filed any case before any court to declare that Subham is not his child. It is further submitted that Ramesh Manahare had died in the year 1988 while Shubham was born on 27.4.1994 while she was residing with revision-applicant. Under these circumstances also, it is contended that presumption of legitimacy was in favour of child Shubham. It also appears that the learned trial Judge in the course of impugned judgment, did mention about the documents relied upon as also earlier compromise before Women Grievance Redressal Cell entered into by the present revision-applicant to give maintenance in the sum of Rs.600/- per month to Shubham. Thus, it is submitted that had the applicant been serious about his contention to challenge legitimacy of the child-Shubham, he would not have entered into a compromise to pay maintenance to child Shubham in front of the Women Grievance Redressal Cell. Thus, conclusion in the impugned judgment and order was just and proper and no fault is found in it.

3. It is not in dispute that the revision-applicant is serving in State Excise Department as a Constable and earning salary in the sum of Rs.10,000/- approximately, per month. That being so, no ground is made out for disturbing the maintenance awarded in the sum of Rs.800/- per month to child Shubham and cost as ordered by the learned Judge, Family Court, Nagpur. For all these reasons, the impugned order appears just, proper and legal. No interference is called for. Revision is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.