Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 98 (TRI)

Dilip Das v. Smti Putul Das

2014-02-18

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta; C.J.:- This Revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 31.01.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura whereby he allowed the petition filed by the respondent on behalf of her minor daughter praying that she be granted maintenance for the minor daughter. 2. The lady Putul Das filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Belonia, alleging that she had sexual relations with Dilip Das (petitioner herein) since he had promised to marry her. When no marriage took place this lady filed a complaint before the police that she had been raped. In the said criminal case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia vide his judgment delivered on 12.03.2003 came to the conclusion that though sexual intercourse had taken place between the lady and the petitioner, herein, the petitioner was entitled to be acquitted since the sex was consensual in nature. Therefore, the present petitioner was acquitted on the ground that the lady had consented to have sex with him. When he did not marry the lady nor did he maintain the child, which was born out of the sexual relationship, the lady filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the learned Magistrate rejected this petition on the ground that the judgment of the Criminal Court could not be relied upon and further that the evidence of the lady was not reliable since she willingly had sexual intercourse with the man without being married to him. On this ground the petition was rejected. The lady filed the Revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura which has been allowed and hence this petition. 3. I have heard Mr. PK Biswas and Mr. P. Majumder, learned counsel for the petitioner. The main contention raised upon by the learned counsel is that there is no proof of paternity of the child. In this behalf it would be pertinent to mention that the lady as well as her two witnesses i.e. PW 2 and PW 3 have clearly stated that the lady had long term sexual relationship with the present petitioner. In fact this is not specifically denied by the petitioner himself. In this behalf it would be pertinent to mention that the lady as well as her two witnesses i.e. PW 2 and PW 3 have clearly stated that the lady had long term sexual relationship with the present petitioner. In fact this is not specifically denied by the petitioner himself. No doubt, the judgment in the criminal case cannot be used as evidence but it can be read for this limited extent that the petitioner was acquitted on the ground that the sexual intercourse was consensual in nature. There is no allegation that the lady had sexual intercourse with any other person. No such suggestion had been made. This lady, who was a young girl at the relevant time had sexual intercourse with the petitioner who did not even marry her and, thereafter, she has suffered a lot. 4. I fail to understand the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court. Maintenance was being asked for the minor and assuming for the sake of argument that the mother i.e. the lady was immoral, that was not a ground to deny the maintenance to the minor child. From the evidence on record, it is more than obvious that the lady and the present petitioner had long term standing illicit relationship and out of this illicit relationship the minor child was born. 5. Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. makes it the duty of the father to maintain his legitimate and illegitimate children till they attain majority. The mere denial of paternity is not sufficient in the present case because it stands proved beyond doubt that the lady in question, had sexual intercourse with the petitioner and there is no suggestion that she had sexual intercourse with any other person. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has arrived at a finding of fact on the basis of evidence. There is no jurisdictional error in the said judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Ju dge, Belonia, South Tripura. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere in the said judgment. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 6. The petitioner is directed to ensure that the entire amount due and payable till date, if not already paid is paid latest by 31st July, 2014 and future monthly maintenance be paid to the wife, for the child. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere in the said judgment. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 6. The petitioner is directed to ensure that the entire amount due and payable till date, if not already paid is paid latest by 31st July, 2014 and future monthly maintenance be paid to the wife, for the child. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Trial Magistrate and in case the petitioner fails to show that he has paid the amount then the learned Magistrate shall execute the award even without any execution petition being filed. This order has been passed because of the fact that the beneficiary of the order is a minor who is unable to look after herself. The guardian may or may not look after the interest of the minor and, thereafter, it is the duty of the Court to ensure that the interest of the minor is protected. 7. Criminal Revision petition is disposed of. Send down the LCRs forthwith.