IMPORTANT POINTS
Law is well settled that for the reason that a document was marked by a Court of Law in evidence, the parties who has produced it is not discharged from his burden to prove it. Mere filing or exhibiting a document in court does not amount to proving its contents. Admission of documents in court may amount to admission of its contents, but not the veracity of those. Only documents produced and exhibited in the course of evidence alone could be relied on. Documentary evidence must be proved strictly in the manner envisaged by the provisions of the Evidence Act. By mere filing of the documents before the court, one cannot canvass that the contents of those are proved.

ORDER :

The revision petition on hand is directed against the order passed by Family Court, Ernakulam on 27.02.2018 in M.C.No.163 of 2014. The revision petitioner is the respondent in the M.C. He was directed by the impugned order to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- to his son aged about 7 years. He being a minor, was represented by his mother in the case as next friend. The parties to this revision are referred to hereinafter as the respondent and the petitioner in accordance with their status in the M.C.

2. The petitioner's mother married the respondent on 29.08.2005 at St.Gregorious Auditorium, Nannuvacaud, Pathanamthitta. The petitioner was born in the wedlock on 08.08.2006. From 06.11.2006 onwards, the respondent neglected to maintain the petitioner. He was with his mother who being unemployed, found it difficult to maintain him and therefore, has approached the Family Court seeking for maintenance from the respondent.

3. In the counter statement filed by the respondent in the M.C, though the marriage was admitted, paternity of the child was suspected. It was contended that the marital relationship got strained due to the strange character of the petitioner's mother. However, he has expressed his readiness to maintain the child. But his contention was that the maintenance if ordered by the court will not be utilised by the mother for the welfare of the child. Accordingly he seeks for dismissal of the M.C.

4. The petitioner's mother was examined before the Family Court as PW1 and Ext.P1 was marked. On the side of the respondent, himself tendered oral evidence as RW1 and Exts.D1 to D4 were marked. On appreciation of the evidence, the Family Court found the petitioner entitled to get maintenance and accordingly, awarded Rs.10,000/-per month and directed the respondent to pay it from the date of the petition.

5. Sri.T.M.Raman Kartha, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended at the outset that the monthly maintenance fixed by the Family Court to a child of 7 years is exorbitant and without any basis. According to him, a certificate issued from the Diocese of Travancore and Cochin Anglican Church was produced by the respondent and got marked in evidence as Ext.D1 to establish his monthly income as Rs.12,000/-. According to him, the marking of the document was not opposed by the petitioner and therefore the court has received the same in evidence. According to him, the Family Court was reluctant to rely on it for the reason that it was issued by the Secretary of the Diocese who is a person working under the respondent. According to him, if any opposition was raised, the marking would have been subject to further proof and then he could have adduced further evidence to prove Ext.D1. Therefore, it is urged by him that opportunity to adduce further evidence to establish the authenticity of the document was denied to him resulting in injustice and prejudice and interference is called for.

6. It has come out in evidence and also conceded by the petitioner that the respondent has his aged mother and a sister who is mentally retarded to be maintained with the income earned by him. The respondent as RW1 has also spoken about his ailments. It was further contended that the respondent avoided the company of PW1 for her strange character and therefore is not liable to maintain her. The impugned order was sought to be set aside for the foregoing reasons.

7. The petitioner (respondent in the revision) was served with notice from this Court in the revision. It is found from the materials that despite service of notice on him, he has not cared to appear personally or through a counsel.

8. Eventhough a doubt was raised on the paternity of the child in the counter statement filed by the respondent, while being examined as RW1, he expressed his affinity to the child and preparedness to maintain him. It has also come out in evidence that even without any order or direction from a Court of Law money was paid to the child for h