HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Cr.M.P.N0.54I2007 SB: HON’BLE $HRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRNASTAVA‘ J Sukhdas Yadav, aged about 26 (24) yaars, son of Shri Ramsingh ‘ Yadav, Resident of Village Tatum; ‘Police Station Manpur, District PETITIONER Rajnandgaon (CG) Versus Karan Kumar, aged about 2 1/2 years (06 months), Minor, through his natural guardian Mother Smt. Basanti Bai, aged about 23 (21) years D/o Chiman Singh, Resident of viilage Tolum, Poiice Station anpur, District Rajnandgaon (CG) RE$PONDENT PETITION UNDER $ECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Appearance: shri P.K.C. Tiwari, Sr. Advocate with Shri Shashi Bhushan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate for the respondent. ORAL ORDER (15.1 1 .201 1) Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Heard. (2) This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 19.01.2007, passed by the revisional Court in Cr. Revision No.11612006, whereby, the order dated 3.10.2006 passed I by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambagarh Chowki, District N;V , M 2 CRMP 54/2007 Rajnandgaon in Misc. Case. No. 19/2004, granting maintenance to the respondent, has been affirmed. (3) Relevant facts necessary for decision of the present petition are that one Basanti Bai filed an application under Section 125 of tne Code of Criminal Procedure before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambagarh Chowki, claiming maintenance for herself as also for her son- Karan Kumar on the pleadings, interalia, that Basanti Bai and Sukhdas had long standing affair for 2 to 2 "/2 years and she was living as his wife. it was pleaded that when she conceived, a Meeting was convened in the village, in which, the petitioner had accepted his relationship with her and also the parentage, and an agreement was also executed to that effect by the petitioner. On 4.10.2002, non-applicant Karan Kumar was born. On the basis of ' the aforesaid pleadings, prayer for grant of maintenance was made. The petitioner, in his reply denied ail the allegations including relationship between him and Basanit Bai as also the parentage. After recording the oral and documentary evidence led by both the parties, the learned Magistrate granted maintenance holding that the boy Karan Kumar was born out of reiationship between the petitioner and Basanti Bai. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision, which too was dismissed leading to present petition. (4) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailing the legality and validity of the orders passed by the Magistrate and the Revisional Court, vehemently submitted that the award of maintenance granted in favour of the respondent is impermissible because in the summary enquiry held by the Magistrate, there is no iota of evidence to come to the conclusion that the petitidner and Basanti Bat were having monogamic relations of long standing. It is \ \ l , CRMP 54/2007 submitted that where there is no valid marriage betWeen the parties, which is the case here, oniy on stray instances of love affairs and some kind of reiations, parentage could not be presumed even in summary proceedings. He submitted that in order to come to the conclusion with regard to parentage, there must be clinching evidence of long standing relationship, which should be of monogamic nature and any possibility of the lady having reiation with any other person has to‘be completely ruled out and in those circumstances, maintenance could be awarded on the finding of parentage. in support of his submission, he placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Chaturbhuj Vs. Amar (Misc. Criminal Case No.113f2005), Kanakram Patel Vs. Daulatram (Criminal Misc. Petition No. 592I2007), Deenuram Sahu Vs. Hemlata (Cr. Revision No.286/2003) and the decision of Orissa High Court in Smt. Lata Dei @ Pramiia & two Ors. Vs. Bishnu Charan Panda, reported in 1995 (4), 627. (5) Per contra, leamed counsel for the respondent submitted that the nature of enquiry under Section 125 Cr.P.C., being summary proceeding, the standard of proof required is not as high as in civil proceedings. According to him, there is ample evidence on record supporting the findings recorded by the Courts below that Basanti Bai and the petitioner had long standing relationship, out of which, respondent— Karen Kumar was born. He submitted that this ciaim of Basanti Bai was supported by other independent witnesses and also by the documentary evidence in the form of an agreement. in support of his submission, he placed reliance on Dimple Gupta (minor) Vs. Rajiv Gupta (2007) 10 SCC, 30. (6) The application for grant of maintenance tiled by Basanti Bai and respondent Karan Kumar shows that a specinc averment was CRMP 54/2007 made that Basanti Bai had love affair wit the petitioner for 2 to 2 1/2 years and she lived as his wife. Specific pleading was also made that when she conceived achiid, a village meeting was convened, in which, the petitioner admitted his relationship as also parentage. ln her testimony as PW-1 , she has stated that she had relationship with the petitioner for past 45 years and that she conceived the child out of the said relationship. In her cross examination, suggestion was given that she was married to one Narsu, but she has stated that she never lived with Narsu. Her father Chimanram (PW—2) has also supported thesubmission, deposing that the petitioner is his son-in- law and the child was born out of relationship between the petitioner and Basanti Bai. Basanti Bai upon being asked by the elder man in the village stated that she conceived the child out of her relations _ with the petitioner and when the petitioner was called in, he had admitted his relationship and the parentage both. Another villager Vishwanath (PW-3) has also suppoded the case by stating that Basanti Bat is the wife of Sukhdas. He has also stated that in the village meeting he was present and number of villagers have attended the meeting, wherein, Sukhdas admitted his relationship and parentage and he had also agreed to keep Easanti Bai with him. T£i (7) The evidence led by the petitioner shows that the relationship has been denied and it has been stated that Basanti Bai was married to Narsu, who was her husband and there was no love affair between the petitioner and Basanti Bai and he was being falsely impiicated. One Sumer Singh examined as NAW-2, has also supported the case by stating that Basanti Bai is the wife of Narsu and that the petitioner deniedhis relationship with Basanti Bai in the “\~\\ village meeting. Basanit Bai has also placed on record an agreement said to have been executed by the petitioner relating to his relationship and parentage. The Courts below, after examining h ‘ the evidence available on record, have drawn finding of fact that there was long standing relatidnship between the petitioner and Basanti Bai and the child was born out of the said relationship, and finally arrived at a conclusion of parentage. (8) The decisions, which have been relied upon by the leame'd l Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of the case, show that in all those cases; the Court has insisted that in the absence of there being a case of living together for a long time and without there being any evidence of monogamic relationship between the parties, maintenance in the name of illegitimate child, could not be awarded. Applying the aforesaid principle of law, findings have been recorded in each of those cases turning on their" own facts. Therefore, applying this principle in the present case, it is v required to be seen as to whether the Courts below have recorded the findings based on the evidence to show existence of long standing relationship of monogamic nature between the parties. (9) As discussed above, in the application and in her testimony both, Basanti Bai had clearly stated regarding-the long standing relationship between her and the petitioner. lt has been supported by her father as also by one independent witness Vishwanath (PW— 1). All the witnesses have categorically stated that a village meeting was convened, in which, the petitioner had accepted his relationship as also parentage. lt is true that a case has been set up by the petitioner that Basanti Bai was married to Narsu, therefore, the plea of Karan Kumar having been born out of the relationship, is liable to be rejected. The conclusion in that regard is required to be drawn by considering the totality of the evidence and the material available on record. ln her cross examination, Basanti Bai (PW-1) has clearly stated that though she was married to Narsu, but she had never 5 6 CRMP 54/2007 ”‘5 “Jr: ”I“ CRMP 6 54/2007 lived with him and there was ‘Chodchhuttf between them 2 years prior to the incident. This coupled with the evidence available on record that both the petitioner and Basanti Bai were having relations for several years and that the petitioner had admitted his relationship as also the parentage, constitute the material evidence to suppon the finding that Karan Kumar was born out of the relationship between the parties. ‘ ' (10) Though the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the evidence in this regard is not at all avaiiable, l am unable to accept the submission. The standard of proof required in a summary proceeding under Section 125 Cr. P.C. is not as high as is required to prove the legal status of the parties in civil proceedings. What has come on record in the present case shows that there exists some evidence to sustain the finding recorded by the Courts below. An inference, which has been drawn by the Courts below, cannot be said to be perverse in the sense that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that there was monogamic relationship between the parties. ii (1 1) An agreement has also been placed on record, which records # the admission of relationship of the petitioner with Basanti Bai and parentageof Karan Kumar. l am of the view that such material is sufficient for the Court in a summary proceeding to come to the conclusion that the child Karan Kumar was born out of the long standing relationship between the parties. (12) ln the result of the above discussion, l am not inclined to hold that by granting maintenance to respondent Karan Kumar, there has been any miscarriage _of justice or abuse of law, warranting " l t. w 7 CRMP 54/2007 interference by this Court, in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petition isriiehlLto haw and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/— i Manmdra K Mohan Shrivastava 3 7 Judge i i“ J. ' i hf" i