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

2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 32124

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
M.N.KRISHNAN, J
ALAVI – Appellant
Versus
ANEESA – Respondent
RPFC 68 2006



Advocates:
SRI.BABU S. NAIR, SRI.K.P.MUJEEB FOR R1 & R2

Paternity can be established through DNA testing, and maintenance can be adjusted based on presumed income when specific financial evidence is lacking.

Headnote:

Paternity - Family Law - Maintenance Provisions - Summary: The court affirmed the paternity of the child via DNA evidence, upheld the wife's claim for maintenance, and adjusted the amounts based on the husband's financial capacity, emphasizing a reasonable presumption of income for maintenance claims.

Fact of the Case:

The revision petitioner filed against a Family Court order regarding the marriage and the paternity of a child, which was disputed. The wife claimed neglect from the husband post-marriage, while the husband contended the wife was pregnant at the time of marriage. A DNA test confirmed his paternity.

Finding of the Court:

The court found no grounds to overturn the Family Court's decision regarding the marriage, paternity, or the right to live separately. It noted mental cruelty by the husband and addressed issues regarding maintenance.

Issues: The primary issues revolved around the determination of paternity, the rights of the wife and child to maintenance, and the adequacy of evidence concerning the husband's financial capacity.

Ratio Decidendi: Determination of paternity through scientific evidence like DNA testing is legally binding. Maintenance amounts can be modified based on presumed income levels, taking into account the husband's claimed financial status.

Final Decision: The maintenance for the wife was reduced to Rs.1,800/- and for the child to Rs.1,200/-.

JUDGMENT

The revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C.No.677/2004. The revision petitioner married the 1st respondent and a child is born, the paternity of which is disputed. The case of the wife is to the effect that after marriage she became pregnant and in the seventh month of pregnancy, she was taken to her house and that she had given birth to a child and husband and the members of his family never looked after them. On the contra, husband would contend on the very next day of the marriage, the wife was found to be weak and on examination, she was found to be pregnant but she refused to go to the doctor. The child was given birth to after 9 months and 16 days after the marriage. DNA test was conducted and it was found that the revision petitioner is the biological father of the child. The mental cruelty inflicted by the husband towards his wife is demonstrated by his conduct.

2. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the decision rendered regarding the marriage, paternity as well as the reasonable ground to live separately.

3. The learned counsel, however, strongly argues before me that the court below has allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- to the wife and Rs.1,500/- to the child. The wife would depose that the husband is employed in Gulf, running a bakery having an income of Rs.50,000/- and that he is having five items of movable property fetching an income of Rs.20,000/-. On the contra, the husband would contend that he has no such extend of property and he does not have the income as stated by the wife. In this type of cases, in the absence of specific evidence the court may not be able to arrive at a decision correctly regarding the financial capacity. It has to be remembered that things are not safe as it were and there is a decline in earning from abroad and so many persons are also sent back. So one can not come to a conclusion regarding the income, merely for the reason that one person is living abroad. But one has to presume that he will have a reasonable income. Therefore, taking in to consideration, all those aspects, I feel that some amount can be reduced and therefore, I re-fix the maintenance at the rate of Rs.18,00/- for the wife and Rs.1,200/- for the child, making it a total sum of Rs.3,000/- instead of Rs.3,500/-.

Revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE.

mns

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top