The main legal point established is that the paternity of a child and entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC should be proven, and failure to disprove paternity may result in an obligation to provide maintenance.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT SHARMA, J.

1. The present revision petition under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), and Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, has been filed by the petitioner assailing the judgment dated 16.09.2019, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in MT No. 269/2018, titled Smt. Prem Lata v. Sh. Lucky Panchal, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the petition under Section 125 of the CrPC, filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1 herein. The learned Family Court in the impugned judgment held that respondent no. 1 would not be entitled to any maintenance, but awarded maintenance in the sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month to Ms. Chhaya, respondent no. 2 (minor child), till she remains unmarried, effective from her date of birth and with an enhancement of 5% every year.

2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for adjudication of the present petition are as under:

i. Marriage between Mr. Lucky Panchal (petitioner) and Ms. Premlata (respondent no. 1) was solemnized on 19.04.2014, in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies.

ii. Due to temperamental differences between the petitioner and respondent no. 1, they started to reside separately from 02.02.2015. On 16.02.2015, the petitioner served a legal notice to respondent no. 1 from Crime Against Women Cell, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, wherein respondent no. 1 was told that in case she wished to return to her matrimonial home, she would have to return the stridhan received from the petitioner. Thereafter, on 28.02.2015, respondent no. 1 signed few documents and returned the aforesaid articles to the petitioner’s father and was assured that she can join her matrimonial home after Holi.

iii. Thereafter, on 22.04.2015, petitioner filed a petition for dissolution of marriage before the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Subsequently, respondent no. 1 lodged an FIR against the petitioner and his family members, bearing FIR No. 953/2015, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), registered at P.S. Vasant Kunj and a complaint case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('DV Act'), pending for adjudication before the Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

iv. On 06.10.2015, respondent no. 1 had filed a petition seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. before the Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. During the conciliation proceedings which had taken place between the petitioner and respondent no. 1, on 24.09.2016, Ms. Chhaya (respondent no. 2) was born out of the wedlock.

v. The learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, vide order dated 18.10.2016, referred the matter to a Principal Counselor for a possible settlement, on account of birth of respondent no. 2/minor child . Thereafter, vide order dated 14.03.2017, the learned Principal Judge directed the petitioner to pay ad-interim maintenance in the sum of Rs. 4,500/- per month to respondent no. 2 (minor child).

vi. Thereafter, the learned Principal Judge vide order dated 12.10.2017, directed the petitioner to file an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’), impleading respondent no. 2 (minor child) as a party to the petition. During the proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC, respondent no. 1 moved an application impleading respondent no. 2 (minor child) as a party to the petition.

vii. On 27.04.2017, the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, in Case No. 646/2015, granted interim maintenance in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month to respondent no. 1, under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, bearing First Appeal Defective No. 303/2017, which was admitted but no stay was granted.

viii. The learned Principal Judge, Family Courts,