IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 18TH BHADRA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 648 of 2009() ---------------------------- OP.410/2007 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------- M.P.VASUDEVAN,S/O.KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT MELEPURAKKAL HOUSE,THALAKAPPU, CHAPPANANGADI P.O.,KOTTACKAL,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS PRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- PATTIPARAMBIL SUSEELA,D/O.VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT CHEMMANTHATTA,KEEZHATTOOR P.O., MELATTOOR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2009, ALONG WITH R.P.(FC)Nos.334 & 335/09 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- Mat.Appeal No.648/2009 and R.P.(F.C.)Nos.334 & 335 of 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. The appellant/petitioner in these proceedings is the husband. Respondents herein are the wife and three children. Four matters were disposed of by the Family Court by a common order. The appellant/petitioner/husband had claimed divorce and that prayer was rejected. Against that, Mat.Appeal No.647/2009 has already been filed. The same has already been admitted. 2. The husband filed O.P.No.410/2007 for a declaration that the last child born during valid matrimony is not his child. The said prayer was resisted. The wife contended that the 4th child was conceived by her in her legal matrimony with the appellant/petitioner/husband. 3. The wife filed two separate applications claiming maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. The wife and three children claimed maintenance in M.C.No.210/2007. The 4th child born later, claimed maintenance in a separate application, as Mat.A.No.648/09 & RP(FC)Nos.334 & 335/09 -2- M.C.No.642/2007. 4. The court below considered all the four matters together and came to the conclusion that the attempt of the appellant/husband to disown the paternity of the child born in valid matrimony is not justified. The court below found that the eldest child has already attained majority and is therefore not entitled for maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. So far as the wife and the other three children are concerned, the court below directed payment of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.1,200/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- per mensem, respectively from the date of the petition. 5. The petitioner/appellant/husband claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. Detailed arguments have been heard. 6. In Mat.A.No.648/2009, the only question that falls for consideration is whether the court below erred in coming to the conclusion that the child born in valid matrimony is the child of the appellant. 7. Admittedly, the spouses were legally married. Mat.A.No.648/09 & RP(FC)Nos.334 & 335/09 -3- Admittedly, the marriage remained in force at the time when the child was conceived and born. Admittedly, the spouses were residing under the same roof, in the same room at the time when the child could possibly have been conceived. The presumption under section 112 of the Evidence Act stares at the appellant. He wanted a DNA test to be conducted to disprove the case of the respondents that the child is born to him legitimately. The court below did not grant the said prayer. It is in these circumstances that the appellant assails the finding regarding paternity of the child. 8. What is the grievance of the appellant? According to the appellant/father after he returned from his employment abroad, though the spouses were residing in the same house under the same roof in the same room, they did not have physical relationship at all. He further contends that he is sterile and that he has got the test conducted to confirm that he cannot impregnate any woman. No evidence whatsoever except the oral assertions of the appellant/petitioner was available before the court below on this aspect. Mat.A.No.648/09 & RP(FC)Nos.334 & 335/09 -4- 9. It is well settled that even a negative DNA test report cannot dislodge the conclusive presumption under section 112 of the Evidence Act. Admittedly, there is no case of non-access at all. Though there is a contention raised that the appellant/petitioner cannot medically be responsible for any pregnancy, no evidence whatsoever is adduced on that aspect. It is by now trite that unless satisfactory prima facie material about non-access is adduced, the prayer to get the DNA test conducted cannot ordinarily be accepted. We do not in these circumstances find any error or flaw in the conclusion of the court below that the appellant's prayer that he is not the father of the 4th child born to his wife cannot be accepted. The challenge raised in Mat.Appeal No.648/2009 hence fails. 10. So far as R.P.(F.C.)Nos.334 and 335 of 2009 are concerned, notwithstanding the apology of a contention raised that the 4th child born in the wedlock is not the child of the petitioner/husband , the presumption under section 112 of the Evidence Act clearly points to his responsibility for the birth of the child and his liability to pay maintenance. The only other Mat.A.No.648/09 & RP(FC)Nos.334 & 335/09 -5- contention raised against the claim for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. is regarding the quantum of maintenance awarded. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner/husband is a tailor by profession. He was employed abroad for a long period exceeding 22 years. Admittedly, he was running a tailoring shop of his own at such place of employment abroad. The claims are made in 2007 and admittedly, till 2006, he was so employed abroad. Even on his own admitted version he is not without employment after his return to the native place. It was in these circumstances that the court below came to the conclusion that the petitioner can safely be directed to pay the amounts of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.1,200/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- per mensem, respectively to his wife and children. 12. We must alertly note that we are called upon to invoke and exercise the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. Such powers can be invoked to interfere with the quantum of maintenance awarded under section 125 Cr.P.C. only when this Court is convinced that the quantum fixed is grossly excessive and perversely disproportionate to the means of the Mat.A.No.648/09 & RP(FC)Nos.334 & 335/09 -6- petitioner herein. Judged in the background of the facts narrated above, we are unable to agree that the quantum of maintenance fixed under the impugned order warrants interference. The quantum fixed, according to us, is absolutely fair, reasonable and just. The same does not warrant interference at all. 13. It follows that these proceedings do not deserve admission. 14. In the result, Mat.Appeal No.648/09, R.P.(F.C.)Nos.334 and 335 of 2009 are dismissed in limine. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn