JUDGMENT : 1. This revision under section 397/41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 12-3-2008, passed in MJC No. 410/2004, by the learned Family Court, Bhopal, granting maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent No. 1. 2. The case of the respondents before the learned Family Court was that the marriage of the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 23-2-2000 as per Hindu rites and rituals and due to this wedlock respondent No. 2 was born. After birth of respondent No. 2, the applicant and his relatives started dowry demand and to fulfill this demand they have committed cruelty against the respondent No. 1. Members of the Society and other relatives interfered in the matter, but, the behavior of the applicant never changed and ultimately he left the respondents and shifted to Burhanpur. On these series of facts respondents filed an application for maintenance before learned Family Court because the respondent No. 1 was not having any source of income for the livelihood of the respondent No. 1 and her son. The applicant being the Unani doctor, having source of income of Rs. 12,000/- per month without having any responsibility. 3. The applicant appeared before the Court with the reply that the respondent No. 1 never lived with him and after one day only she came to Bhopal with her brother. When the applicant went at her parental home she refused to come with him. Meanwhile the applicant shifted to Surat and tried his level best to live together, but all the efforts turned futile. Matter was resolved on the basis that the applicant will settle at Bhopal where the parents of the respondent No. 1 resides but her behavior does not change during stay at Bhopal. The respondent No. 1 impose many more conditions, which cannot be complied with. Even then the applicant tolerated all misbehavior of the respondent No. 1. Sometimes he found some pieces of cigarettes and also found empty liquor bottles in the room of the respondent No. 1. When he inquired with the respondent No. 1 she failed to give satisfactory reply. Due to all these situations the applicant was not having any mental or physical relationship with the respondent No. 1. Sometimes he found some pieces of cigarettes and also found empty liquor bottles in the room of the respondent No. 1. When he inquired with the respondent No. 1 she failed to give satisfactory reply. Due to all these situations the applicant was not having any mental or physical relationship with the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 became pregnant due to her adulterous life and the respondent No. 2 is the outcome of this adultery, therefore, the applicant challenged the paternity of the respondent No. 2 also. On these sets of facts the applicant denied the maintenance of the respondents. 4. After affording opportunity to both the parties to file oral as well as documentary evidence learned Family Court accepted the claim of the respondent No. 1 and awarded maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month in her favour but, refused to give any amount to minor respondent No. 2 on the ground that he is not legal son of the applicant. Against this, the applicant approached this Court. 5. Questioning the soundness of the impugned order Shri Abhilash Dey, learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court failed to believe the statements of witnesses examined by the applicant, therefore, impugned order is arbitrary, unjust, illegal and without application of mind. It is not made clear by learned Family Court that why the statement of applicant is not trustworthy. Also over looked this proved fact that the respondent No. 1 was not having any valid reason to live separately from the applicant. Earning capacity of the applicant is also miscalculated, therefore, revision be allowed and impugned order be set aside. 6. Shri Vijay Raghav Singh, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the above mentioned submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant. As per the contention made in reply learned counsel for the respondents submits that applicant has made false and frivolous allegation against the respondent No. 1 regarding living adulterous life but completely failed to establish this false and frivolous allegations, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court does not requires any interference. 7. Learned counsel for the parties has been heard at length. Their submissions have been considered carefully in the light of material available on record. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the parties has been heard at length. Their submissions have been considered carefully in the light of material available on record. 8. The marriage between the applicant and the respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 23-2-2000 as per Hindu rites and rituals is a proved fact. 9. The applicant himself admitted this fact that he is getting salary of Rs. 3,500/-. 10. Now, coming to the question whether the respondent No. 1 was having justification for separate living from the applicant? It is manifestly clear that while filing the reply of main application of the respondents the applicant specifically raised allegations against the chastity of the respondent No. 1 particularly in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of his reply. 11. Learned Family Court after appreciation of the evidence produced by both the parties in Para 16 to 20 lucidly discussed the evidence on the strength of mentioning case law and in Para-19 came to the conclusion that when the husband has leveled charges against his wife regarding leading adulterous life, but, failed to prove in these circumstances as a result these false allegations are sufficient reason for wife to live separately. In such premises when learned Family Court come to this conclusion that the respondent No. 1 is having every right to live separately from the applicant is based on evidence led by the parties and does not requires any interference. 12. The respondent No. 2 Anunay -Test Tube Baby. While dealing with the claim of minor respondent No. 2 the parties lead the evidence regarding this fact that the respondent No. 2 is born as the result of artificial insemination. Because, this fact was not pleaded by the respondent No. 1 in her application, hence, there was no occasion for the applicant to rebute it or to raise any objection regarding the birth of respondent No. 2 as Test Tube Baby. 13. Learned Family Court exonerated liability of maintenance by the applicant towards the respondent No. 2. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondents were not adopted any legal recourse against the denial of maintenance amount for the respondent No. 2. 14. 13. Learned Family Court exonerated liability of maintenance by the applicant towards the respondent No. 2. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondents were not adopted any legal recourse against the denial of maintenance amount for the respondent No. 2. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that regarding birth of respondent No. 2 Anunay, as Test Tube Baby, all relevant record which were made available to the respondent No. 1 by the Hospital, were produced during the trial but, learned Family Court did not satisfied with available material brought on the record, hence, maintenance was not granted to the respondent No. 2. It is also submitted that since the applicant was not physically capable of getting blessed by child therefore with the mutual consent of couple, Test Tube Baby the respondent No. 2 Anunay was born. 15. The applicant, first time raised this issue in this revision memo with the allegations that the respondent No. 1 maintained illegal relationship with another person and the respondent No. 2 was born in 2002 through artificial insemination but, without his consent. In this sequence it is made clear on the strength of admissions of the applicant as well as the respondent No. 1 that they are related with medical profession. 16. This fact is not disputed that a child who is born as the result of artificial insemination is legitimate child. A husband who permitted his wife to be artificially inseminated is entitled to the paternity rights of a natural father as well as also liable to fulfil his responsibilities towards Test Tube Baby. While the statute imposes liability on the father, the purpose of the statute with reference to that subject is to insure and facilitate the enforcement of that obligation, where necessary. 17. Though, the husband is not biological "father" of the Test Tube Baby, but the same time the child is not illegitimate child, because the husband is liable for the child's support because he wilfully consented for artificial insemination which, implied a promise to support. The question of the liability of the husband for support of a child created through artificial insemination is one of first impression. The question of the liability of the husband for support of a child created through artificial insemination is one of first impression. A child conceived through artificial insemination is not illegitimate but, condition precedent is that the husband wilfully consented for adopting this artificial technique of insemination for happiness of the couple who, are not naturally capable for having blessed with child. 18. Before parting with the case, it is clarified that the rights of maintenance of the respondent No. 2 Anunay against the applicant cannot be considered in this revision which is filed by the applicant, not by the respondents. In these facts and circumstances, the respondents are having liberty to take necessary steps for determination of maintenance rights of respondent No. 2 against the applicant. 19. So far this revision is concerned challenging the amount paid to the respondent No. 1 these facts are proved that marriage between applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 23-2-2000 and applicant is also getting salary of Rs. 3,500/-. As alleged by the applicant against the respondent No. 1 that she is leading adulterous life, but, failed to prove in these circumstances, as a result these false allegations are sufficient reason for the respondent No. 1 to live separately. Hence, in the result, this revision is dismissed.