Judgment ( 1. ) THIS criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 28. 12. 2004 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandla in M. Cr. C. No. 272/03, whereby the application filed by respondents under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. has been partly allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month to respondent No. 2. ( 2. ) THE facts of the case are that the applicants/respondents (hereinafter referred as respondents) filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. before the concerned Magistrate wherein it was averred that respondent No. 1 Mamta was alone in her house on the day of incident i. e. to say in the month of Baishakh in the year 1999. The petitioner/non-applicant (hereafter referred as the petitioner) entered in her house, asked for a glass of water and when she went inside the room he closed the door and committed forcible sexual intercourse and assured to perform marriage with her. He had been committing such sexual intercourse with her at the intervals of 2-4 days and continued the same for near about 1 years as a result of which she conceived. Thereafter he refused to marry with her. Panchayat was convened but he did not turn up in Panchayat, therefore, she lodged the report at police station Bamhani on 05. 11. 2000. On the basis of which a criminal case was registered against the petitioner. He was prosecuted for the offence under Section 376 of I. P. C. but ultimately he was acquitted from the charge but the Court observed in its judgment that respondent No. 1 conceived as a result of the sexual intercourse by the petitioner as a result thereof respondent No. 2 Swati was born and thus on the basis of her being illegitimate daughter of the petitioner the application was filed claiming maintenance for herself and for her daughter Swati. The averments were also made that the respondents are unable to maintain themselves whereas the petitioner has sufficient means to support them. Hence petitioner be directed to pay maintenance to the respondents. ( 3. The averments were also made that the respondents are unable to maintain themselves whereas the petitioner has sufficient means to support them. Hence petitioner be directed to pay maintenance to the respondents. ( 3. ) THE petitioner filed the written reply denying most of the averments made by the respondents in the application mainly contending that he has not committed sexual intercourse with respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 2 is not his illegitimate daughter, therefore, he is not liable to pay the maintenance to the respondents. Further it was also contended that he has no any means to earn and he is dependent upon his father, therefore, he is not capable to pay the maintenance to the respondents. ( 4. ) BOTH the parties adduced evidence in support of their pleadings wherein Rampyari (AW-1), Mamta (AW-2), Malilal (AW-3) and Ajay Mishra (AW-4) were examined on behalf of the respondents whereas Pawan Kumar Barmaiya (NAW-1) and Ramphal (NAW-2) were examined on behalf of the petitioner. After appreciating the evidence, the Court below rejected the application of respondent No. 1 Mamta Bai on the basis that she was not married with the petitioner but allowed the application of respondent No. 2 on the basis that she is the illegitimate daughter born to respondent No. 1 by the sexual intercourse of the petitioner hence directed to pay the maintenance allowance at the rate Rs. 500/-per month which was to be effective w. e. f. 01. 01. 2005. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the instant revision has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of revision. ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below has erred in allowing the amendment application of the respondents wherein the inconsistent pleading was taken against the original pleadings. As per original pleadings the case of the respondents was that the respondent No. 1 is the wedded wife of petitioner and respondent No. 2 is the legitimate daughter born out of their wedlock but by the amendment which was allowed by the Court it was incorporated that respondent No. 2 was born on account of the continuous illicit intercourse by petitioner with respondent No. 1. The subsequent pleadings being inconsistent against the original pleadings ought not to have been allowed by the Court below but by allowing such application the Court below has committed an illegality. The subsequent pleadings being inconsistent against the original pleadings ought not to have been allowed by the Court below but by allowing such application the Court below has committed an illegality. Learned counsel further submitted that the finding of the court below that the respondent No. 1 was conceived because of the sexual intercourse by the petitioner and as a result thereof respondent No. 2 was born is erroneous. The court below has guided by the observations made by the Sessions Judge in S. T. No. 6/01 that respondent No. 2 is the illegitimate daughter of the petitioner. Such observation does not have the binding effect. Mamta (AW-2) has admitted in para 10 of her deposition that there was no access of the petitioner after January, 2000, therefore, the birth of respondent No. 2 in the month of Baishakh in the year 2001 by respondent No. 1 could never be connected with the petitioner because it was more than 280 days since then. In absence of blood group which might be useful to furnish the evidence of paternity, it can not be accepted that respondent No. 2 is his illegitimate daughter. Learned counsel further submitted that the Court below has committed an illegality by relying on the birth certificate (Ex. P-1) because the date of birth of the respondent No. 2 is 01. 01. 2001 whereas the birth certificate has been registered on 20. 06. 2003. Furthermore, it was not supported by medical record and such record if any has not been produced by the respondents and, therefore, the adverse inference ought to have been drawn against them under Section 114 (g) of Indian Evidence Act. On the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel argued that order passed by the Court below is erroneous which deserves to be set aside and consequently it be held that the petitioner is not liable to pay maintenance to respondent No. 2. ( 6. ) ON the contrary, Shri Sanjay Saini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents mainly submitted that the court below has not committed any illegality in allowing the amendment application. Such amendment had not been challenged. The finding of the Sessions Court in its judgment (Ex. P-2) has also not been challenged and has become final in between the parties. The judgment is relevant under Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act. The birth certificate (Ex. Such amendment had not been challenged. The finding of the Sessions Court in its judgment (Ex. P-2) has also not been challenged and has become final in between the parties. The judgment is relevant under Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act. The birth certificate (Ex. P-1) is a public document and is relevant under Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel further submitted that Pawan Kumar (NAW-1) has admitted in para 5 of his deposition that in the birth certificate (Ex. P-1) the name of Pawan Kumar Barmaiya is mentioned in the column of father. Knowing this well he did not raise any objection in this regard hence the order passed by the Court below is proper and does not call for any interference in this revision. ( 7. ) THE main point for consideration in this revision is that whether the Court below has committed any illegality in granting maintenance to respondent No. 2? ( 8. ) NO doubt, originally the respondents came with a case that respondent No. 1 is the wedded wife of petitioner and respondent No. 2 is their daughter. But subsequently the amendment application was moved to the effect that the petitioner committed sexual intercourse with the assurance that he will perform the marriage with respondent No. 1 and continued doing the sexual intercourse for 1 years with the interval of some days and as a result thereof she conceived and gave birth to respondent No. 2. No doubt it was an inconsistent pleading which was allowed by the Court below but there is no bar to take inconsistent plea and such amendment may be allowed. No fault can be found with the order of the Court below in allowing the amendment application. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of this case, the fact remains that petitioner gave assurance to respondent No. 1 to marry and committed continue sexual intercourse with her. The Sessions Court while passing the judgment (Ex. P-2) in the rape case did not find the petitioner guilty for the simple reason that the respondent No. 1 was consenting party but it has been observed that respondent No. 1 was conceived as a result of sexual intercourse by the petitioner as a consequence thereof the respondent No. 2 was born. P-2) in the rape case did not find the petitioner guilty for the simple reason that the respondent No. 1 was consenting party but it has been observed that respondent No. 1 was conceived as a result of sexual intercourse by the petitioner as a consequence thereof the respondent No. 2 was born. Though this finding is given by the Sessions Court in rape case but is relevant in between the parties. The petitioner has not challenged such finding in the proper Forum. No doubt, since the paternity of a child can be determined by the Civil Court, therefore, became final. Such finding of Sessions Court cant be brushed aside. ( 9. ) NO doubt, Mamta (AW-2) has deposed in her evidence in para 10 that no cohabitation took place in between them after January, 2000. The birth of respondent No. 2 is of 01. 01. 2001. In such circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there was no probability of conceiving respondent No. 1 by this petitioner. But this contention is not acceptable for the simple reason that the respondent No. 1 is rustic villager and she has given the evidence that after first incident i. e. to say in the month of Baishakh, 1999 he continued to commit sexual intercourse with the respondent No. 1 upto 1 years on the interval of some days, therefore, it can not be expected from her to specify the date from which he did not commit sexual intercourse with her. It is evident that respondent No. 1 lodged F. I. R. (Ex. P-9) of rape case on 05. 11. 2000 and at that time she was carrying the pregnancy of 7 months and respondent No. 2 has taken birth on 01. 01. 2001, therefore, it can very well be said that respondent No. 1 was conceived as a result of sexual intercourse by the petitioner and gave birth to respondent No. 2. ( 10. ) EX. P-1 is the birth certificate issued by the competent authority which is relevant under Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act. In the birth certificate Pawan Barmaiya is shown father of Swati. This Pawan Barmaiya is the petitioner in the case. He himself has admitted in para 5 of his deposition that he has not taken any objection in this regard. If he came to know that his name as father of Ku. In the birth certificate Pawan Barmaiya is shown father of Swati. This Pawan Barmaiya is the petitioner in the case. He himself has admitted in para 5 of his deposition that he has not taken any objection in this regard. If he came to know that his name as father of Ku. Swati Barmaiya is entered incorrectly then he might have taken any action in this regard by initiating any legal proceeding but the same has not been done which indicates that he had no objection if his name continued as father of Swati Barmaiya. Since Ex. P-1 is a public document issued by the competent authority, it does not adversely affect the authenticity and genuineness of this document if registered after some time of taking of birth of child. On the basis of the this document it can be said that petitioner is shown as father of Ku. Swati. ( 11. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no blood group to prove the paternity of the child. The Court below has rejected the application for DNA test, therefore, in absence of such evidence, it cannot be held that respondent No. 2 is the illegitimate daughter of the petitioner. ( 12. ) ON perusal of record, it reveals that an application was moved on behalf of respondents under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act for conducting the DNA test but this application was contested by the petitioner and ultimately the Court dismissed the application on 22. 12. 2004. It clearly indicates that the respondents tried for the DNA test to which the petitioner himself objected. Thus the respondents were bona fide on their part whereas the petitioner was not, therefore, now he cannot say that on want of such evidence the paternity of respondent No. 2 cannot be proved. ( 13. ) ON perusal of impugned judgment, it is evidently clear that Court below has held that respondent No. 2 is the illegitimate daughter born out of the illicit relationship of respondent No. 1 and petitioner. Such finding prima facie appears to be reasonable and proper. ( 14. ) IT is evident that respondents are not in a position to maintain themselves. The respondent No. 2 is the minor daughter. On the contrary, petitioner is having the sufficient means. It has been stated on his behalf that presently he is not earning anything. Such finding prima facie appears to be reasonable and proper. ( 14. ) IT is evident that respondents are not in a position to maintain themselves. The respondent No. 2 is the minor daughter. On the contrary, petitioner is having the sufficient means. It has been stated on his behalf that presently he is not earning anything. The agriculture land is in the name of his mother. His father is a teacher by occupation and the Kirana shop is also in the name of his mother, therefore, the petitioner himself is dependent and is not in a position to provide maintenance. But this argument cannot be accepted for the simple reason that he is a young able-bodied person and this is sufficient that he has means to pay maintenance. He is only son whose parents have sufficient property. Since respondent No. 2 has born on account of his illegal act committed with respondent No. 1-mother of Swati hence he is responsible and liable to maintain her till she attains majority. The Court below has not committed any illegality in awarding the maintenance to respondent No. 2. The revision is meritless and deserves to be dismissed. ( 15. ) CONSEQUENTLY, this revision fails and is dismissed accordingly. The order passed by the Court below is hereby affirmed. The court below is directed to abide by the order passed on 28. 12. 2004.