Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1527 (MP)

Prakash v. Meena

2014-11-25

N.K.GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT : N.K. Gupta, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order dated 26.6.2008 passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in MJC No.520/2005 whereby the maintenance of Rs.800/- per month was granted to the respondent No.2. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents had moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. that the respondent No.1 went to the house of her maternal uncle for Durga Festival in the year 2003 where she met with the applicant. Thereafter they accepted each other and their marriage was performed according to the Hindu custom. After sometime the applicant demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- from her father and the father of the respondent No.1 gave some cash, some articles like clothes etc. But after 3-4 months the applicant left her in the house all alone whereas his family members were in habit to abuse her with insulting words. She was pregnant, and therefore they pressed her to get aborted. Again the applicant came back and sent her to her parents' house to bring some money so that the applicant could start a business at Bhopal and thereafter she was not called by the applicant any more. The respondent No.2 had born at Sultania Zanana Hospital, Bhopal. The respondents had pleaded about the income of the applicant and expenditure of themselves. Ultimately a sum of Rs.2000/- per month was demanded by each of the respondents as maintenance. 3. The applicant in his reply refused to know the respondent No.1. He denied of his relations with the respondent No.1. It is accepted that the respondent No.1 had lodged an FIR of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and a criminal case was pending in the Criminal Court of District Betul. Actually the parents of the respondent No.1 were not interested to get the marriage of the respondent No.1 with the applicant and thereafter a false case has been lodged. The applicant was ready to get DNA test to prove that the respondent No.2 was not his child. Consequently, it was prayed that the maintenance application be dismissed. 4. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal has dismissed the maintenance application of the respondent No.1, but granted a maintenance of Rs.800/- per month to the respondent No.2. 5. Consequently, it was prayed that the maintenance application be dismissed. 4. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal has dismissed the maintenance application of the respondent No.1, but granted a maintenance of Rs.800/- per month to the respondent No.2. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 6. The trial Court has found that no marriage of the respondent No.1 and the applicant took place, and therefore it was found that the respondent No.1 was not entitled for any maintenance. However, by perusal of various documents, it was found that the respondent No.2 was born to the respondent No.1 in the company of the applicant. In this connection Meena (PW-1) respondent No.1 has stated about the facts and circumstances when she had started living with the applicant. An FIR Ex.P-5 was also lodged. The birth certificate Ex.P-7 indicates that name of father of the new born child was mentioned to be Prakash. Similarly, in the discharged ticket Ex.P-8 the respondent No.1 had shown the applicant to be her husband. The most important document was a compromise between the parties at Police Station Chopna which took place on 10.3.2004 and produced as document Ex.P-2. In that document, the parents of the applicant have accepted that there was love affairs between the applicant and the respondent No.1, and therefore they will be accept the respondent No.1 as daughter-in-law in the house. It is also stated by respondent No.1 Meena (PW-1) and her witness Amal Sahna (PW-5) that Meena resided with Prakash for sometime. An FIR Ex.D-2 has also been filed by the applicant in which he has accepted that in the year 2004 he brought Meena from Chopna to Bhopal and thereafter due to threat given by various other persons, he left his house for Mumbai where he was working in Sahara Company, and therefore a missing report dated 20.5.2004 was lodged by his parents. 7. The applicant has also produced a document Ex.D-3 an application given by the respondent No.1 to Superintendent of Police, Betul to arrange counseling at Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Betul. That application was lodged by the respondent No.1 at Superintendent of Police, Betul and notice of the said application was issued to the applicant. 7. The applicant has also produced a document Ex.D-3 an application given by the respondent No.1 to Superintendent of Police, Betul to arrange counseling at Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Betul. That application was lodged by the respondent No.1 at Superintendent of Police, Betul and notice of the said application was issued to the applicant. In that application, it was mentioned that the respondent No.1 resided in the house of the applicant since February 2004 and thereafter the family members of the applicant started harassment to the respondent No.1 for dowry demand. By that letter, it would be apparent that respondent No.1 Meena resided in the house of applicant in the period February 2004 and thereafter. Looking to the birth certificate Ex.P-7, it would be apparent that girl child was born to Meena on 29.10.2004 and according to the discharged ticket Ex.P-8 the child was born after full term pregnancy. Under these circumstances, where the applicant had relations with respondent No.1 Meena prior to the period when she started residing with the applicant in his house, and therefore prima-facie the respondents have discharged their burden to show that the child was born to the respondent No.1 due to the company of the applicant. 8. The applicant took a plea in his reply that he did not know the respondent No.1 and there was no relation of the respondent No.1 with the applicant. However, looking to the documents and reports, it would be apparent that the applicant brought the respondent No.1 to his house and after living with her in his house, he left for Mumbai, and therefore by such documents, it is an admission of the applicant himself that he brought the respondent No.1 to his house and he had relations with her prior to that period. Under these circumstances, the defence taken by the applicant that he did not know the respondent No.1 at all appears to be false. Applicant Prakash in para 9 of his statement has accepted that he left Betul for Bombay on 15.3.2004, and therefore prior to that period he was in the company of the respondent No.1. Under these circumstances, the defence taken by the applicant that he did not know the respondent No.1 at all appears to be false. Applicant Prakash in para 9 of his statement has accepted that he left Betul for Bombay on 15.3.2004, and therefore prior to that period he was in the company of the respondent No.1. He did not contradict the fact that he left the respondent No.1 for a pretty long time and he had physical relations with the respondent No.1 prior to 15.3.2004, and therefore looking to the date of delivery of the child, he could not contradict the statement given by the respondent No.1 on oath that the respondent No.2 was born due to cohabitation done by the applicant. 9. Pulinchand (DW-4) father of the applicant has stated that at the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra his signature was taken on a blank paper and thereafter Ex.P-2 was prepared, but there was no enmity between the SHO Chopna with the witness so that such mischief could be done by the SHO concerned. When the respondent No.1 did not reside in the house of Pulinchand as told by him and as to why the applicant himself sent a report Ex.D-2 in which he has accepted that he brought the respondent No.1 to his house. Under these circumstances, the testimony of Prakash and Pulinchand cannot be accepted that the respondent No.1 did not reside in the house of Prakash in the period February 2004 to April 2004. 10. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the trial Court has rightly found that the respondent No.2 is the child of the applicant, and therefore if any maintenance was granted to the respondent No.2, then no illegality or perversity has been done by the trial Court. There is no reason to accept the present revision. Consequently the present revision filed by the applicant Prakash is hereby dismissed. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court along with its records for information and compliance.