Acknowledgment of paternity without contesting the validity of marriage can support maintenance claims under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.322/2018 filed under Section 125 (1) Cr.P.C by the respondents herein in the Family Court, Thrissur claiming maintenance from him.

2. As per Ext.P6 order, the Family Court directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to the second respondent, who is his daughter. The aforesaid order is challenged in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Ext.P6 order was passed by the Family Court after granting opportunity to the petitioner to file counter statement in the application seeking interim maintenance and after hearing both sides. The respondents herein claimed that they are the wife and the daughter of the petitioner. In the counter statement filed by the petitioner, he denied a valid marriage with the first respondent. But, he did not deny the paternity of the second respondent. What is stated in the counter statement filed by the petitioner is only that the second respondent was not born in a valid marriage by him with the first respondent. There is no specific denial by him that he is not the father of the second respondent. Paternity of the second respondent is not specifically denied in the counter statement filed by the petitioner. In such circumstances, I find no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the Family Court directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- to the second respondent. 5. The petitioner has got a plea that he is suffering from psoriasis and therefore, he could not go for work. On the other hand, the respondents have got a plea that the petitioner is conducting timber business. The photographs, alleged to be that of the petitioner, produced before this Court to show that he is suffering from psoriasis cannot be considered by this Court. The only other material produced by the petitioner to prove his illness is outpatient tickets issued from a Government Homeo Hospital in the year 2018. Ext.P6 order is dated 11.10.2019. There are no sufficient materials to find that the petitioner is at present suffering from any illness which prevents him from earning income.

6. The second respondent, the daughter of the petitioner, is now aged 15 years. The amount ordered to be paid as interim maintenance is not excessive.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find no sufficient ground to interfere with Ext.P6 order passed by the Family Court, by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is liable to be dismissed.

Consequently, the petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE al/-.

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE M.C NO. 322/2018 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION AS M.P

1331/2019 IN M.C 322/2018 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIOENR TO EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE O.P TICKET EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHJS OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR IN M.P 1331/2019 IN M.C

322/2018 DATED 11-10-2019

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

TRUE COPY

P.S TO JUDGE

AL/-