1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.927 OF 2008. Eknath S/o Namdeo Kanmahale ... Petitioner. Versus Ku.Pooja D/o Eknath Kanmahale and another ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.B.Gorde Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Mamta R.Waramaa, advocate holding for Mr.B.R.Waramaa, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 30.07.2009. PER COURT 1. By this petition, petitioner challenges judgments and order dated 1.11.2007, rendered by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Criminal R.A.No.282/2004, confirming judgment and order rendered by the learned Judicial 2 Magistrate (F.C.), Chalisgaon, in Cri.Misc.Application No.216/2001. Both the Courts concurrently held that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are illegitimate children of the petitioner and are entitled to seek separate maintenance allowance from him. The learned Magistrate awarded maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.750/- p.m. to each of them. 2. The petitioner's case before the learned Judicial Magistrate was that the Respondents are not his children. He denied their paternity. He denied status of their mother, Sou.Leelabai, who was the original applicant No. 1, as his legally wedded wife. He submitted that one Tarabai is his legally wedded wife but she has renounced the world and has embraced Mahanubhav sect. He asserted that two sons are born to said Tarabai from their wedlock. According to him, the application filed by the Respondents and their mother Smt.Leelabai was false and was ill-motivated with intention to blackmail him. At the trial, the original applicant No.1 - Smt.Leelabai entered the witness 3 box. She narrated that she married the petitioner somewhere in the year 1996. She deposed that out of her marriage with the petitioner, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were born. She narrated that the Respondent No.1 was born at village Palshi in Nasik District. She further deposed that the birth name of the Respondent No. 1 is Punam but her nick-name is Pooja. She relied upon birth certificate (Exh.22). Her evidence purports to show that the Respondent No. 2 was born at Nasik. The birth certificate is produced at Exh.23. The cross-examination of P.W. Leelabai reveals that most of the part thereof comprises of suggestions given to her. She denied all the material suggestions. Nothing of much importance could be gathered from her cross-examination. 3. Mr.Gorde Patil, would submit that the birth certificate and the Insurance Certificate (Exh.24) are got up documents. He contended that such documents have been prepared by the original applicant No.1 with a view to claim maintenance allowance. Both the Courts have held that the 4 relevant documents are duly proved and there is no finding, whatsoever about suspicious nature of said documents. It appears that name of the petitioner was shown as father of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 at the time of their birth on 3.3.1999 and 22.9.2000 respectively. The petitioner did not file any Criminal complaint about forgery of the said document including the Certificate of Insurance (Exh.24). It appears from the certificate of Insurance that name of P.W. Leelabai was shown with reference to the petitioner as her husband. It is well settled that disputed questions of facts can not be considered in the Writ jurisdiction. Considering the relevant record and versions of the parties, it may be gathered that the petitioner offered mere denial to the paternity of the Respondents. There is, however, sufficient evidence to show that the petitioner and mother of the Respondents were living together and that the Respondents are regarded as their children. It is well settled that the law leans in favour of legality about paternity and frowns at bastardy. The learned Magistrate and the learned Adhoc Additional 5 Sessions Judge, held that marriage between P.W.Leelabai and petitioner was not duly proved in view of her discrepant evidence. However, documentary evidence and the unimpeached version of P.W. Leelabai would be sufficient to attribute paternity of the Respondents to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgments do not call for interference in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crwp92708