IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.M.O. No.114 of 2008. Date of decision: 27.09.2010. Babu Ram … … Petitioner Versus Ms.Phul Kumari … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Ms.Bhawna Dutta, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, affirming the order of maintenance granted to the respondent herein by the learned trial Court. 2. Petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was preferred by the respondent herein that she was the daughter of the petitioner herein and that he had failed/neglected to maintain her. This petition was resisted on a number of grounds including the question of legitimacy of the birth of the respondent herein. Learned trial Court, after 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 considering the evidence on record, awarded maintenance to the extent of Rs.500/- per month from the date of the order. This order was challenged in revision and has been dismissed by the learned appellate Court. 3. Exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I would be most reluctant to interfere in the revisional order as I find no illegality committed by both the Courts below. In any event having considered the submissions made on behalf of the counsel, I do not find any perversity in the order. The learned revisional Court has discussed the evidence in detail which does not require any reproduction here. Sangat Ram PW-1, maternal grandfather of the respondent supported her case and stated that the petitioner herein had entered the name of the respondent as his daughter in the records of the Panchayat. He was also informed about the factum of conception of the child from the lions of the petitioner herein by PW-2 Smt.Ramila. PW-3 Mela Ram has supported the testimony of the minor. PW-1/A is the birth certificate showing the parentage of the respondent. So much so in the First Information Report No.150 of 1992 mark `X’, dated 3rd July, 1992 mother (Smt.Romila) of the minor had alleged that she was constantly subjected to rape by the respondent on the false promises of marrying her having been made by the petitioner. I need not deal with the evidence any further except to say that the order is well reasoned, 3 supported by evidence on record and mere denial of the fact that the respondent is not the daughter of the petitioner is not sufficient to deny her maintenance. 4. Submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the parentage has not been established by the respondent’s independent witness, cannot be accepted. What else could the mother state with respect to the paternity of the child? This petition is dismissed. September 27, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.