SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(Ker) 75

Judges : PADMANABHAN
Kunhiraman - Appellant
Versus
Manoj - Respondent
Case No : Crl.R.P.No. 453 of 1990
Decided On : 02/27/1991
Advocates Appeared :
K. Kunhirama Menon & P. Ramakrishnan Nair For Petitioner K. Ramakumar For Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of DNA testing as conclusive evidence in determining paternity and the duty of the putative father to provide maintenance to the illegitimate child under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Headnote:

Paternity Dispute - Maintenance - Code of Criminal Procedure - S.125 - DNA Test - [Paternity Dispute] - [Code of Criminal Procedure, S.125] - The court discussed the legal framework of S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the use of DNA test as conclusive evidence in deciding paternity. The court emphasized the reliability and significance of DNA testing in establishing paternity, and highlighted the duty of the putative father to provide maintenance to the illegitimate child.

Fact of the Case:

Vilasini, an unmarried woman, filed a maintenance petition against Kunhiraman, claiming him to be the putative father of her child. Kunhiraman denied paternity, leading to a dispute over the child's maintenance. The court considered evidence including DNA testing to determine paternity.

Finding of the Court:

The court found Kunhiraman to be the biological father of the child based on the DNA test results and upheld the trial court's decision to award maintenance to the child. The court emphasized the significance of DNA testing in establishing paternity and the duty of the putative father to provide maintenance to the illegitimate child.

Issues: The main issue was the determination of paternity and the obligation of the putative father to provide maintenance to the illegitimate child.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the conclusive evidence provided by the DNA test to establish paternity, emphasizing the duty of the putative father to provide maintenance to the illegitimate child under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Final Decision: The court dismissed Kunhiraman's criminal revision petition and upheld the trial court's decision, confirming Kunhiraman as the putative father of the child and ordering him to provide maintenance.

Judgment :-

Kunhiraman is a wealthy middle-aged eligible bachelor. Vilasini is his neighbour. She is a young spinster working as agent of an insurance company. Vilasini became pregnant and gave birth to Manoj. Pregnancy and delivery were cleverly concealed by her because she was unmarried. Delivery was in the paramba, where the child was abandoned. Matter came to the notice of the police. She was prosecuted, but acquitted. Now the child is happily living with her. In the birth register, Kunhiraman's name appeared as father on her information. He objected and got his name removed. On behalf of Manoj, she filed M.C.No.17 of 1988 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalasserry against Kunhiraman under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for getting maintenance. Kunhiraman denied paternity. Chief Judicial Magistrate found him to be the putative father and awarded maintenance at the monthly rate of Rs.500/-. Kunhiraman wants to revise that order.

2. Both Kunhiraman and Vilasini hail from families having good antecedents. In the petition and in the box as PW 1, vilasini said that in her life, she gave sexual access only to Kunhiraman. Kunhiraman denies having had any such access to her and said that the child must have been born to somebody else. But he was not able to pinpoint anybody or say that Vilasani was living a life of bad virtues.

3. Vilasini said that she went to Kunhiraman to canvass a policy and he readily obliged. Her further case is that Kunhiraman took interest on her and offered to help her by canvassing policies from others and he did so. Kunhiraman admits that himself and his brother took policies from her, but says that it was at the intervention of her grandmother, for which there is no evidence. Vilasini says that Kunhiraman's helping attitude persuaded her to meet him again and one day, when the meeting was at a time when Kunhiraman alone was in the house, he forced her to sexual intercourse, for which she yielded after initial resistance on account of his promise to marry her. Thereafter, visits and sexual connection became a regular affair and she became pregnant, she said. Kunhiraman flatly denied all these facts. His attitude is that he never met her.

4. As argued by Mr.Kunhirama Menon, on behalf of Kunhiraman, there is the possibility of Vilasini making an attempt to find out a suitable father in him for the child because he is an eligible wealthy bachelor. But, except the alleged act of impregnating her, there is no other motive suggested for false implication. As earlier stated, there is no evidence to show that Vilasini is a lady of bad virtues, except the alleged connection with Kunhiraman on his promise to marry her. Attitude of Kunhiraman that he had no occasion to meet Vilasini is falsified by the fact that himself and his brother took policies from her. Intervention of the grandmother was not even attempted to be proved.

5. PW3 is the immediate neighbour of Kunhiraman. He is a venerable old man in his seventies having no axe to grind against Kunhiraman. Only suggestion was that he was giving false evidence because he was a colleague of Vilasini's father. That suggestion was denied by him and there is no evidence or probability in support of the suggestion. In my opinion, every word he said could be believed. He had occasion to see Vilasini and Kunhiraman together on several days at the residence of Kunhiraman during periods when the child could have been begotten. He said that his opinion and the public opinion in the locality is that Kunhiraman is the person responsible for pregnancy. Court may not be bound to accept that opinion, which need not always be correct. He said that he heard from others, including the relations of Vilasini, that they met Kunhiraman and he offered to marry Vilasani admitting paternity of the child. That evidence also could be rejected as hearsay. Kunhiraman did not marry her. Therefore, PW 3 himself went to Kunhiraman in the company of some others for a mediation. His
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top