IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.199 of 2003. Date of decision: 05.07.2010. Uma Dutt … …Petitioner Versus Puja … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.I.D. Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr.Digvijay Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.B.C. Verma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This revision petition has been preferred by respondent Uma Dutt against the order of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P. 2. Petition was filed by Kumari Puja through her next friend and guardian Smt.Bindri Devi claiming maintenance in the sum of Rs.500/- per month from the respondent on the allegation that Smt.Kalan Devi, her mother is an illiterate, deaf and dumb lady and she was born out of the sexual relation which she had with the respondent. It is alleged that the respondent had very 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 close and intimate relations with Kalu and during the months of February to April, 1997, the respondent- petitioner had close proximity and intimacy with the result Kumari Puja was born. On 17.1.1998 a compromise was effected at the instance of the respondent whereby he admitted that Kumari Puja was his daughter and this compromise was reduced into writing by the Vice President of Gram Panchayat Malendi and signed by Uma Dutt, her mother, Kumari Puja and also by the witnesses in which a sum of Rs.500/- per month was agreed to be paid, but he backed up of this compromise. 3. This petition was resisted by the petitioner- respondent and he denied that he ever fathered the claimant. The Court, relying upon the evidence of PW-1 Smt.Bindri Devi, next friend of the claimant minor, PW- 2 Tula Ram, PW-3 Shyama Nand, who is a witness to Ex.PW-4/A and PW-4 Tara Chand, the scribe of the compromise and RW-1 Uma Dutt, has held that the allegations made by the petitioner as established. 4. Referring to the compromise Ex.PW-4/A, the Court holds that PW-4 Tara Chand, who scribed this agreement, remained as Vice President, Gram Panchayat, Malendi from 1996 to 2000 and he was called by the wife of Govind Singh in connection with the birth of a baby child (respondent). According to him, when he went to the house of Bindri Devi, he found that Uma Dutt petitioner, his wife, Hari Dutt and Shyama Nand are present in the house and in the presence of these 3 persons, the petitioner herein accepted fathering the child and also agreeing to pay the maintenance. From the over all evidence, the Court relied upon the evidence of PW-1 Smt.Bindri Devi to state that respondent was having sexual relations with Kalu. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have gone through the record of the case. 6. I cannot accept the submission made that Ex.PW-4/A has not been proved. The evidence of PW-4 Tara Chand is clear and cogent that the document was written at the behest of the petitioner-respondent. So is the evidence of PW-3 Shyama Nand who is a witness to this deed. 7. The respondent has been awarded a pittance as maintenance. On the other submission that Kalan Devi was not produced as a witness which would negate the entire case of the minor, I do not find any force in the submissions. In these circumstances, this petition is dismissed. July 5, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.