P. Ubaid, J.—The claim for maintenance made by an illegitimate son under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed by the Family Court, Palakkad as per the order dated 18.09.2009 in M.C.No.170 of 2008. The person liable to pay maintenance is the revision petitioner herein, and so he is aggrieved by the said order.

2. The claim was made by the illegitimate minor child through his mother, Haseena. Her case is that she had been in intense love with the revision petitioner herein, and this continued for some time. While so, he once visited her at her residence on 10.08.2001 when she was alone there, and subjected her to sexual intercourse. In the said solitary incident of intercourse against her will, she conceived, and she delivered of the claimant child on 20.05.2002. The revision petitioner was duly informed and was also requested to marry her. When he declined and washed his hands off the responsibility, Haseena made a complaint before the police alleging rape. On the said complaint, the police registered FIR, and after investigation submitted final report in court. The revision petitioner faced prosecution before the Court of Sessions, Palakkad in S.C.No.301 of 2004. On trial, the court found him not guilty, and accordingly he obtained an order of acquittal. In fact, Haseena waited with hope that the revision petitioner will marry her and accept the child as his, as promised by him, but in vain. In such a situation, she brought M.C.No.170 of 2008 against the revision petitioner herein, claiming maintenance for the said illegitimate son.

3. The revision petitioner entered appearance and resisted the claim with all vigour possible, and contended that he is not the father of the child. Of course, he would admit that he had acquaintance with the lady for a few years, but that apart, he had no connection or affair.

4. During the proceedings in the trial court, Haseena filed application as C.M.P.No.1362 of 2009 for a DNA test. The revision petitioner opposed the said application vigorously and maintained a definite stand that he would not consent for such a test, for reasons known to him alone. In such a situation, DNA test could not be ordered by the court below. However, the case proceeded for trial. Haseena examined herself as PW1, and the revision petitioner examined himself as RW1. On an appreciation of the evidence and contra evidence on the point, the trial found that the revision petitioner is in fact the father of the child. Accordingly, he was directed to pay maintenance to the child at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. The said order is under challenge in this revision.

5. Pending this proceedings, I found the necessity of some reliable scientific method like DNA test for a just decision. Finding that result of such a test would resolve the dispute forever, I directed the revision petitioner to file a statement as to whether he is ready to undergo any scientific test at the expense of the 1st respondent. Before this Court also he maintained a negative stand and did not consent for such a course.

6. In the above factual situation, the question for decision is whether the paternity of the claimant child stands properly and legally proved. Of course, it is a dispute on facts, and the trial court has found in favour of the child on the basis of evidence adduced on both sides. Being a revision, this Court cannot go into the meticulous details of the evidence adduced by the parties on facts. Still let me examine whether the impugned order is tainted with any illegality or irregularity.

7. This is a case where the 1st respondent could not have adduced any other evidence, except her own versions regarding the alleged incident, or the alleged incident of sexual intercourse with or without consent. The mother of the child examined as PW1 has given definite and consistent evidence proving her case, and proving the specific incident of intercourse on 10.08.2001 alleged in the petition.

8. Of course, the revision petitioner has made denial in th