IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 2ND ASWINA 1930 RPFC.No. 305 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.91/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR .................... REVISION PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ------------------------------ SUNIL JOHN, AGED 37, S/O.V.M. JOHN, VAYALUMKAL HOUSE, MOOZHOOR.P.O, MATHAMATTOM KARA, AKALAKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SMT.G.VIDYA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. KOCHU RANI, AGED 35, D/O. THOMMAN MATHAI, EATTATHOTTU HOUSE, POOVARANY.P.O, POOVARANY KARA, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM. 2. JEFFY (MINOR), AGED 6 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, KOCHU RANI, AGED 35, D/O.THOMMAN MATHAI, EETTATHOTTU HOUSE, POOVARANY.P.O, POOVARANY KARA, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.C. No.305 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C to pay maintenance @ Rs.750/- per mensem each to the claimants, the wife and child of the petitioner. 2. Marriage is admitted. The marriage took place on 13.05.2000. The 1st claimant/wife gave birth to the 2nd claimant child on 25.02.2001, ie. 9 months and 12 days after the marriage. The petitioner, who admitted the marriage, took up a plea that he is not the father of the child. Though Section 112 of the Evidence Act was staring at him, he filed an application to get the D.N.A test conducted. The test was conducted and the same was answered in favour of the claimants. The 1st claimant/wife examined herself as PW1. The petitioner did not adduce any evidence. The learned Judge of the Family Court has, in these circumstances, proceeded to pass the impugned order. R.P.F.C. No.305 of 2008 2 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance ? The learned counsel for the petitioner apologetically submits that the petitioner even now disputes the paternity of the child. Presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act as also the D.N.A result confirm that there is no substance in that dispute regarding the paternity. No other grounds are raised. 4. This Revision Petition, in these circumstances, only deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-