IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 380 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.29/2005 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD. .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------- 1. T.M.PATTI, AGED 48 YEARS, D/O. KANNAN, RESIDING AT ERIKKULAM MADIKKAI VILLAGE, P.O.ERIKKULAM, HOSDURG TALUK. 2. KANAKA @ SHEEBA, AGED 13 YEARS, 3. SURESH KUMAR, AGED 11 YEARS, (PETITIONERS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER). BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------- T.V.KRISHNAN, S/O. K.P.KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT ERIKKULAM, MADIKKAI VILLAGE, P.O.ERIKKULAM, HOSDURG TALUK. ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS ADV. SRI.K.V.SREEVINAYAKAN. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 380 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Kasaragod in M.C.29/05. The petitioners therein claimed to be the wife and children of the respondents therein moved an application for maintenance and the Family Court found that the marriage with the first petitioner is not proved and the DNA test negatives the paternity of third petitioner and therefore rejected the claim of maintenance and ordered a sum of Rs.1,000/- to be paid as maintenance to the first child namely the 2nd petitioner. It is against that decision the petitioners therein have come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel and a perusal of the order would reveal that there was a previous proceedings as well and the Sessions Court found that the marriage has not been proved. The Family Court analysed the independent evidence in this matter also and arrived at a decision that the marriage is not proved. The lady was married to one Damu R.P.(F.C.) NO. 380 OF 2007 -:2:- and their matrimonial relationship existed and children were born in that wedlock and only after his death that is 8 years thereafter she is alleged to have married this person. She moved an application as M.C.41/85 but it was dismissed as not pressed. The Family Court analysed the evidence of PW2 and held that the petitioner was pregnant at the time of her alleged marriage with the respondent. It is also stated that PW2 would say that the marriage was arranged by the temple committee but the Court observed that PW1 herself have no such case. Though one Sudhakaran was described as 'Moonnan' he was not examined. The evidence of RWs.2 and 3 totally denied the existence of any marriage and according to them the petitioner lead a loose life after Damu's death. In this case there was a DNA test conducted and the DNA test revealed that the 2nd petitioner namely the first child has got connection and that the respondent was the biological father. So far as the 3rd petitioner was concerned DNA test revealed it is not so. So in that back ground the Court analysed the entire materials and declined to accept the paternity of the 3rd R.P.(F.C.) NO. 380 OF 2007 -:3:- petitioner. I do not find any factual error committed by the Court below and there is no illegality or perversity which calls for any interference in the order passed by the Family Court. Therefore the revision fails and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-