IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2011 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1933 RPFC.No. 3 of 2011() ------------------------- MC.184/2010 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................................................... APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------- SANTHOSH P.JACOB @ JOHNSON SANTHOSH, S/O.JACOB, AGED 42 YEARS, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAKIL P.O., KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN SRI.P.K.SHAJU RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. PONNAMMA JOSEPH, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.JOSEPH, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHATHAMALACHIRAYIL, PAKKIL P.O., KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686012. 2. SOORYAMOL.P., SANTHOSH, AGED 14 YEARS (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, PONNAMMA JOSEPH, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHATHAMALACHIRAYIL, PAKKIL P.O., KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686012. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.C.RATNAKARAN BY SMT. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN, PP. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: STU S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- R.P(F.C) No.3 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October 2011 ORDER Revision is by the respondent in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short, 'the Code'). The first petitioner in the proceedings/first respondent in the revision, on her behalf and also on behalf of the 2nd petitioner - child claimed maintenance from the revision petitioner alleging that she is his legally wedded wife and the 2nd petitioner in the proceeding, the child, born to her out of their lawful wedlock. On the materials placed, the court below found that there was no marriage between the 1st petitioner and the respondent in the proceedings and, therefore, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance from the respondent. The court found on the evidence produced that the 2nd petitioner child was born out of her relationship with the respondent, and, holding that the 2nd petitioner is the illegitimate child of the respondent, he was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of `.1,500/- per month to the child from the date of the petition. Propriety, legality and correctness of the order awarding maintenance to the child as aforesaid is challenged in the revision. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused assailed the finding of the court below that R.P(F.C) No.3 OF 2011 2 the 2nd petitioner is the illegitimate child of the revision petitioner contending that the materials tendered by the petitioners in the proceedings do not justify the conclusion so formed. Petitioners have not tendered any acceptable legal evidence to sustain the claim formed by the court that the 2nd petitioner is the illegitimate child of the respondent in the proceedings, is the submission of the counsel. Going through the order passed by the court below, the finding made over the status of the 2nd petitioner, child, as the illegitimate child of the respondent has been formed by the court below on the basis of the evidence let in the case. The learned Magistrate, who had the opportunity to watch the demeanour and deportment of the witnesses found the assertions made by PW2, a social worker, association and cohabitation of the respondent with the 1st petitioner reliable and acceptable. Her evidence in support of the claims of the 1st petitioner, examined as PW1, that while she was hospitalised and when she gave birth to the 2nd petitioner her needs were attended to by the respondent and also that he had cohabitated with her, appeared to the Magistrate truthful. Though the court below has relied on Ext.P1 birth certificate and also Ext.P4 letter issued from the local authority in considering the disputed question, such documentary materials, which came into existence after the birth of the 2nd petitioner, cannot given much significance. But, within the limited scope of exercise of revisional R.P(F.C) No.3 OF 2011 3 jurisdiction, the finding on disputed facts entered by the court on the evidence tendered in the proceedings that the 2nd petitioner is the illegitimate child of the respondent out of his relationship with the 1st petitioner is not liable to be disturbed unless it is shown that the conclusion suffers from serious infirmity. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner, adverting to the evidence of 1st petitioner(PW1), and his witness(PW2) attempted to show that the assertions made by them over the cohabitation of the 1st petitioner with the revision petitioner do not inspire confidence, I am unable to accept such challenges against the order passed by the Magistrate. Reappreciation of the evidence by this court in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction over the finding on fact entered by the inferior court is permissible only where it is shown that the conclusion formed by such court is perverse. Even if a different view is possible and, perhaps, a better view, on the materials placed, still, if the view taken by the inferior court could also be justifiably formed on such materials in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the finding arrived by such court cannot be interfered with. I do not find any merit in the revision, and it is dismissed. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge