IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 239 of 2009() ---------------------------------- MC.267/2007 of FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------- RAJEEVAN, NELLYATTU VEEDU, THANAKKOTTOOR, (PO) PARAKKADAVU, CHEKKYADU AMSOM, THANAKKOTTOOR DESOM, NADAPURAM (VIA), VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------------- 1. LIJI, D/O.ONAKKAN, MEYANDOTHIL VEEDU, THANAKKOTTOOR, P.O.PARAKKADAVU, CHEKKYADU, NADAPURAM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE. 2. RAJISHA, AGED 10 YEARS (MINOR) D/O.RAJEEVAN, REP. BY HER MOTHER LIJI (1ST PETITIONER). BY ADV. MR.A.ANTONY, SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY. THIS REV.PETITION (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RPFC.No. 239 of 2009 ORDER ON CRL.MA.NO.6108/2008 IN RPFC NO.239/2009 DISMISSED 11/03/2010. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 239 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kozhikode in M.C.267/07. This is a case where the marriage and paternity itself is in dispute. The Family Court considered the materials and found in favour of the wife. It is against that decision the husband has come up in revision. 2. Heard the counsel for both the sides. Parties namely the lady and the man belong to two different communities and they were neighbours. According to the wife they had fallen in love and a marriage was solemnized on 29.7.97. Though they initially resided, according to her, in the house of the husband, they have to shift the residence and meanwhile she became pregnant and gave birth to the 2nd petitioner on 29.6.98. It is also stated that as there was opposition from the members of the family of the revision petitioner they entered into a registered marriage Karar on 30.5.98. The recitals in Ext.A1 relates back to the marriage and their agreement to live together. R.P.(F.C.) NO. 239 OF 2009 -:2:- 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner had strongly challenged the finding on the question of marriage, paternity and the quantum of maintenance and had taken me through the entire judgment as well and he had referred to certain documents. The contention of the learned counsel that Ext.A1 has no legal effect can be answered as follows: 4. Ext.A1 does not ipso facto relates to the marriage but it reiterates the factum of marriage and the Karar is entered into. There is nothing to show there has been any fraud or collusion so as to make that document invalid under law. 5. The first petitioner was admitted in the General Hospital at Thalassery and she gave birth to the child. The child is named as Rajisha. All the documents relating to the child including birth certificate would reveal that the mother of this child is Liji Rajeevan and that of the father is Rajeevan. It has also come out in evidence that the father of the revision petitioner moved a suit for injunction which was dismissed by the trial court and allowed by the appellate Court. So it is R.P.(F.C.) NO. 239 OF 2009 -:3:- clear that the father was not in good relationship with the son. It is also seen that father had deposed about a marriage karar in that suit. In order to find out the paternity of the child they were referred to the Rajeev Gandhi Centre for Bio-technology, Thiruvananthapuram and the report was in her favour of the first petitioner to the effect that the revision petitioner is the father of the child. An independent witness was examined as PW2 and he speaks about the marriage and that the revision petitioner tied 'thali' to PW1 and they exchanged garlands and rounded the lamp three times. As against this RW2 was examined and the Court below did not accept his evidence for the reason it did not inspire confidence. So the totality of the materials available would reveal that this man had connection with the lady even prior to the marriage and they belonged to different sects and the marriage was solemnized and it is further strengthened by execution of a karar wherein it is stated that they had been married. So as discussed and found by the Court below the rigor of proof regarding a marriage u/s 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be as tough as one required to prove it in R.P.(F.C.) NO. 239 OF 2009 -:4:- a suit for declaration of the marriage or paternity. The sum and substance of the materials would reveal that the revision petitioner was living with the first petitioner and a child is born to them in that connection and it is supported by evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that there was a marriage in 1997 and the members of the family of the revision petitioner had opposed it. So I find the trial court has not committed any error which requires interference at the hands of this Court. 6. So far as the quantum is concerned, the revision petitioner is now working abroad and the Court has only granted a maintenance of Rs.1,500/- to the wife and Rs.750/- to the child. By any stretch of imagination it cannot be said to be excessive and therefore the quantum also does not require any interference. Therefore the revision lacks merits and the same is dismissed. If any amount is paid or deposited that shall be given credit to. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-