IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.679 of 2008 JAWED ANWAR Versus HASIBUNNISA & ANR ----------- 2 23.9.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order granting maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- for the wife and Rs. 1,000/- separately for the child, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner in fact had already divorced the opposite party-wife and therefore, she was not entitled to any amount of maintenance beyond the period of Iddat, is to be noticed only for its being rejected. The Court below in paragraph nos. 15 & 16, after analyzing the evidence on record, has come to a positive and conclusive finding that such divorce was never affected and in fact the plea taken by the petitioner to this effect was also not proved. The reliance placed by the Court below on the evidence on record for coming to such finding being not only a pure question of fact cannot be reappraised by this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court below for to support its view has also relied on the ratio of the judgments by the Apex Court in the case of Shamim Ara Vrs. State of 2 U.P. & Anr. reported in AIR 2002 SC 3551 and followed by this Court in the case of Rashid Nazfi @ Rashid Nazfi Vs. Shahin Gulab reported in 2005 (3) PLJR 741 which can have no exception in the law and accordingly, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Next, the Counsel contended that the child was also not entitled for any maintenance because the child was not born out of the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party rather it was the specific case of the petitioner that such child was born out of an illegitimate and adulterous relationship of the wife with some one else. Unfortunately, not only this aspect of the matter has been again examined thread bare by the Court below but the petitioner himself has shirked from the crucial test which could have exposed his claim. The petitioner never offered for getting his DNA test conducted in the Court below and therefore, when the other evidence on record had proved that the child was actually born out of the marriage, this Court would only reject such contention of the petitioner which again is only a finding of fact and cannot be re-appreciated much less re-determined by this Court in exercise of power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That being so, this Court would not find any 3 reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, this application is hereby dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to pay the arrear and current amount, if not paid earlier, within a period of one month failing which the Court below will be at liberty to take any step in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this civil revision application is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)