Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 3745 (MAD)

K. Vijayakumar v. V. Devaki & Another

2007-11-22

K.N.BASHA

body2007
Judgment :- 1. This Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner challenging the order of maintenance awarded to the second respondent, illegitimate child of the petitioner herein by the learned Second Additional Family Court Judge, at Chennai in M.C. No.269 of 2001 by the judgment dated 212. 2003. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of award of maintenance passed by the Family Court Judge is unsustainable in law as the learned Judge himself held that the first respondent has not proved the marriage between the revision petitioner and the first respondent. It is further contended that the learned Judge having held that the petitioner proved his marriage with one Vasanthi on 27.01.1982 and out of their wedlock children were also born to them and that in view of this specific finding of the learned Family Court Judge, the award of maintenance, even to the second respondent also, is not sustainable in law. It is contended that the first respondent has come forward with a false claim of maintenance. 3. Mr. N. Doraisamy, appearing as a Legal Aid Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 vehemently contended that there is absolutely no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of maintenance awarded to the second respondent herein, who is ultimately the illegitimate child of the revision petitioner herein. It is submitted that the respondents proved the relationship of the first respondent with the revision petitioner by producing documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. Learned counsel for the respondents also brought to the notice of this Court that the first respondent also produced a photo copy under Ex.P4 showing that the first respondent was posing along with the revision petitioner as husband and wife in a wedding function. It is further submitted that the Election Identity Card under Ex.P3 also discloses the relationship of the first respondent with the revision petitioner herein. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly placed reliance on the Birth Certificate namely Ex.P5 in respect of the birth of the second respondent showing that the revision petitioner is the father of the second respondent. It is further submitted that the Election Identity Card under Ex.P3 also discloses the relationship of the first respondent with the revision petitioner herein. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly placed reliance on the Birth Certificate namely Ex.P5 in respect of the birth of the second respondent showing that the revision petitioner is the father of the second respondent. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that though the learned Family Court Judge has categorically held that the first respondent is not a legally wedded wife, the learned Family Court Judge has given a specific finding to the fact that the second respondent is illegitimate child and as such she is not entitled to the maintenance from his father, the revision petitioner under Section 125, Cr.P.C. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents that the revision petitioner is the Archagar and as well as he is also doing real estate and finance business and as such he is getting a good income and award of Rs.800/-to the second respondent itself is a meagre amount considering the cost of living as well as the educational expenses. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that there no illegality or infirmity warranting the interference of this Court in the order of award of maintenance. 4. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forth by either side and also perused entire documents and materials available on records including impugned judgment awarding maintenance to the second respondent herein. 5. It is seen as per the records, the revision petitioner lived along with the first respondent as husband and wife which were very much evident from the documents produced before the Court under Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. As rightly held by the learned Family Court Judge that the photograph Ex.P4 showing the revision petitioner and the first respondent together in a wedding function and Ex.P6, the original Election Identity Card clearly shows that the revision petitioner and the first respondent lived together as husband and wife, though the marriage is not a valid one in view of the fact that the revision petitioner was already got married as early as in the year 1982 with one Vasanthi. The yet another vital document to establish the relationship between the revision petitioner and the first respondent is the Birth Certificate in respect of the second respondent under Ex.P5 dated 09.03.1991, wherein the name of the revision petitioner is mentioned as father and as such the first respondent succeeded in establishing the fact that the second respondent was born out of the relationship between the revision petitioner and the first respondent. This Court is also constrained to state that the learned Family Court Judge has rightly held that the first respondent is not entitled for any maintenance as she is illegitimate wife but as far as the second respondent is concerned though the second respondent is illegitimate child, she is entitled to get maintenance from the revision petitioner under Section 125, Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is also pertinent to note that the revision petitioner is getting reasonable income from his profession as Archagar as well as from his business namely Real Estate and Finance and as such there is no difficulty for the revision petitioner to pay the maintenance amount to the second respondent. It is needless to state that even the amount of Rs.800/- awarded as maintenance to the second respondent itself is a meagre amount considering the cost of living and other educational expenses. Therefore, this Court is not able to find any infirmity or illegality warranting interference of this Court in the order of award of maintenance passed by the second Additional Family Court Judge, Chennai. 6. Before parting with this matter, this Court is constrained to place it on record the commendable service rendered by Mr. N. Doraisamy, Legal Aid Counsel, who is appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and who has effectively argued the matter. Mr. N. Doraisamy, Legal Aid Counsel is entitled to Rs.2,500/-(Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) as remuneration from the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. 7. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. No costs.