IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 RPFC.No. 139 of 2004(E) ----------------------- MC.177/1998 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- SASIDHARAN, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. VELAPPAN, MANDALAMKUNNATH VEETTIL, NEDUPURA VILLAGE, PALLICKAL DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SMT.SONIYA.M RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: --------------------------- 1. CHANDRIKA, D/O. MADHAVAN, KANDAMPURACKAL HOUSE, NEDUMPURA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 2. SATHISH KUMAR, AGED 9 1/2 YEARS, S/O. SASIDHARAN, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT. ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY FOR R1&2 SMT.M.M.JASMIN FOR R1&2 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 139 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2008 ORDER The petitioner in this R.P.(FC) challenges that part of a common order in which he was directed under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per mensem to both the claimants – allegedly his wife and child. 2. Marriage and paternity were disputed. It was contended that false allegations of marriage and paternity were being raised because of political animosity and rivalry. The wife had filed a petition to restrain the petitioner from getting married again. In that O.P. also the question about the validity of the marriage did arise for consideration. There was only the evidence of rival contestants on oath as P.W.1 and R.W.1 about the marriage. The DNA test was conducted and Ext.A1 showed that the petitioner was the biological father of the 2nd claimant/child. The learned Judge of the Family Court, R.P.(FC) No. 139 of 2004 -: 2 :- who disposed of both the petitions by one common order, came to the conclusion that the oral evidence of the claimant as P.W.1 deserves to be preferred over the oral evidence of R.W.1 and that in choosing between the oral evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1. Ext.A1 – DNA test result confirming the paternity of the 2nd claimant was sufficient to tilt the scales in favour of the claimant. The learned Judge thereupon proceeded to pass the impugned order. 3. First of all, it is worthwhile to note that the order passed in the the O.P. restraining the petitioner from getting married to anyone else on the basis of the finding of marriage between the petitioner and the 1st claimant is not challenged at all. I must alertly remind myself of the nature and quality of the jurisdiction of a Family Court in proceedings under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. to render findings on disputed questions of status. I must also alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this Court to consider the challenge against such findings of fact and exercise of discretions by subordinate criminal courts. In any view of the matter, I find the finding of fact entered by the learned Judge of the Family Court that there was a valid marriage between the petitioner and the 1st claimant and that the second claimant/child was born in such legally valid R.P.(FC) No. 139 of 2004 -: 3 :- matrimony to be eminently reasonable and correct. The same does not warrant interference in any view of the matter. The quantum of maintenance awarded is also absolutely reasonable and I am not persuaded to interfere with the quantum fixed also. 4. This R.P.(FC) is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge