"~uf~— PU' H1GH COURrOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SinaleBench : Hon'bte Shri T.P. Sharma. Judae Crimina! ReyjsionJMo.193 of 2008 ApDiicant Appeliant Krishna Prasad Yadav, aged about 24 years, Son ®f Shri Rambharosh Yadav, Occupation Peon, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, (Takiya Filter Plant), Resident -of Runpurkhurd, (Takiya), Police Station and Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) vereys Non-apDlicants Respondents Smt. Fuimati Yadav, aged about 22 years, wife of Shri Krishna Prasad Yadav, Occupation House wife; Ku. Seema Yadav, aged about 06 years, D/o Shri Krishna Prasad Yadav, Minor through her natura! guardian mother Smt. Fulmati Yadav; Both are residents of Village Sonpurkala, Police Station and Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) Memorandum ofCriminal Revision underSection 19(4^ ofthe Familv CourtsAct. 1984 Present : Shri V.K. Pandey, counsel for the applicant. Sb" Shra""?" fe"'"w Agrawal, cpynsel for the respbndents. (Passed on 1S"1 of June, 2008) This petition is directed against the order dated /" of February, 2006 passed by the Family Court, Ambikapur in M.J.C.No.45/2005 whereby the leamed Judge has awarded maintenance of Rs.500/- to the non-appticant No.2 herein from the date of application i.e.,14-07-2003 holding that she is a illegitimate daughter ofthe applicant. (2) Order is challenged on the ground that without taking into consideration any reliable evidence available on record, the trial /:T^. 2-Qi 1 fc. "'s" ^'"•.^xss^'" t-- Court has held that non-applicant No.2 is a legitimate daughter of the applicant. (3) Heard learned counsel for the parties. (4) Order impugned as well as the record of the trial Court is perused. (5) It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that without taking into consideration any reliable evidence available on record, the trial Court has committed error while holding that non-applicant No.2 is a illegitimate daughter 'of the applicant and awarded maintenance of Rs.500/- from the date of application i.e.,14-07-2003. (6) On the other hand, Shri Shrawan Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the non-applicants argued that impugnedorder isjust and proper. The non-applicant No.1 is not abte to maintain illegitimate daughter of th®applicant-non-applicant No.2 herein, as a result thereof, the trial Court has awarded maintenance of Rs.500/- from the date of its apptication. (7) Relationship between the applicanl and the non-applicant No.1 as well as paternity of the non-applicant No.2 are not admitted by the applicant. Both the parties had led evidence in support of their claims and denied the atlegations of the opposite party. Photographs of marriage ofthe applicant and non-applicant No.1 Ex.P1-A to Ex.P2-B and the Voter List have been proved by the applicant which shows that the applicant and non-applicant No.1 are husband and wife and in addition to this, their names were atso finds place at S.No.688 & 689 in the voter list which alsoshows that the non-applicant No.1 is the wife of applicant. It is suggested on behalf of the applicant that photo has been concocted but the same has been denied by Prosecution witness No.4-Kalyan. The photographs and voter list shows that the applicant is the husband of the non-applicant No.lbut taking into consideration the evidence available on record, it prima facie revealed that both were married with another spouse and the non-applicant No.1 is not legally married wife of the applicant, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. il, •3> ^X") (8) After evaluating the evidence available on record, the leamed Judge, Famfly Court, Ambikapur after holding that the non-applicant No.2 is a iltegitimate daughter of the applicant, awarded maintenance of Rs.500/- from the date of application on the ground that the applicant has not maintained the non-applicant No.2 from her birth. Apart from ocular evidence available on record, photographs and voter list are sufficient to hold that the applicant and non-appticant No.1 were having physical relationship and out of their physicat relationship, non-applicant No.2 was born. Non-applicant No.2 is a illegitimate daughter of applicant and the applicant is under obligation to maintain her. Maintenance of Rs.500/- awarded to ttie non- applicant No.2 by the tearned Judge, FamilyCourt, Ambikapur is neither excessive nor unjust. (9) I do no find any merit in this petition. The petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. ————__ Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Tumane