1. The petitioner herein is the respondent in M.C. No.224 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court, Alappuzha. The said petition was filed by the respondent herein, a boy aged 6 years, through his mother claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Facts, though riveting, need to be narrated, albeit briefly, to have a proper understanding of the issues involved. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in the M.C. shall be referred to as 'Minor' and the respondent as 'Mr. R'. The mother of the Minor shall be referred to as 'Mrs. A'.

3. It was the case of the Minor that his mother, Mrs. A, married a certain Raju Kurian on 16.4.1989. After the birth of their first child, their relationship soured. From the year 1996, they never had any physical relationship though they lived in the same house. During this period, she got close with Mr. R, who was her distant relative. Their relationship bloomed into a love affair and she was persuaded to have non-consensual sexual relationship with him. The Minor was born in the said relationship on 11.6.2001. Due to the situation prevailing then, in all the hospital records, the name of the father was shown as Raju Kurian. It was decided that the entry need to be corrected for various reasons. A suit was consequently instituted before the Civil Court. The prayer was for a decree declaring that Mr. R is the father of the Minor and for mandatory injunction directing Mr. R to submit necessary application to include his name as the father in the relevant register and to seek for the removal of the name of Raju Kurian. According to the plaintiffs, the Minor had congenital urinary ailments and hearing impairment and requires continuous treatment. She was not in a position to afford the expenses for his medicine and treatment and also for his education. It was asserted that the Minor was on the verge of vagrancy and starvation and prayed for issuance of directions to the respondent, who is a police officer, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards maintenance.

4. The respondent countered the prayer and contended that a petition seeking maintenance was not maintainable as he was a total stranger. The Minor was born to his mother during the subsistence of a valid marriage with Raju Kurian. By producing a copy of the birth certificate of the Minor, it was contended that even in the said certificate, the aforesaid Raju Kurian was shown as the father. Referring to the civil suit instituted by the Minor and her mother, which was pending as O.S.No.425 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Munsiff, Ernakulam, it was contended that the issues in both these matters are intricately connected and that being the case, the judgment passed in the suit would have a definite bearing on the reliefs prayed for in the petition. In that view of the matter, the petition itself was not liable to be entertained. The intention of the Minor, according to the respondent, was only to harass and humiliate him.

5. It appears that during the pendency of the petition, an application was filed in the suit seeking for the issuance of a direction to the respondent to undergo a DNA test. The learned Munsiff allowed the petition, which order was challenged by the respondent before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.37165 of 2007. By order dated 3.7.2008, the learned Munsiff was directed to take evidence and if the court was convinced that there has been no access between Mrs. A and Raju Kurian, only then, the respondent be directed to undergo the DNA test. Though the said order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the order was not interfered with.

6. The suit was then taken up for trial. Mrs. A entered the box and gave evidence. She adduced documentary evidence to substantiate that the Minor was sick and ailing; that several letters and cards were sent by the respondent to the Minor admitting the relationship; production of a photograph of the Minor and the respondent standing together; and ban