IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.885 of 2010 SARWAN BAHARDAR S/O SADANAND BAHARDAR ---PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SMT. BUCHANI DEVI D/O LAXMAN SINGPATI 3. ANJANI KUMAR D/O SARWAN BAHARDAR ---OPP.PARTIES. ----------- 04 28.07.2010 The matter has been listed for consideration of the limitation application. I permitted the petitioner to argue on merit. Heard the parties. Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25/11/2008, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Purnea in maintenance case no. M-8 of 2009 (Buchani Devi Vs. Sarwan Bahardar). Opposite party nos.2 and 3 herein filed the aforesaid application seeking maintenance from the petitioner. Opposite party no.2 claimed to be the wife whereas opposite party no.3 claimed to be the daughter of the petitioner. Their case was that they are not being maintained by the present petitioner who had sufficient means to his credit. It appears that both the parties appeared in the proceeding and laid evidence. On a consideration of the materials placed on record learned Principal Judge came to the conclusion that opposite party no.2 herein was not legally wedded wife of the petitioner. While considering the claim of opposite party no.3, learned court below has come to the conclusion that she is born out of the illicit relationship between the petitioner and opposite party no.2, namely, Buchani Devi. This is what the Court below has held in paragraph no. 9:- 2 “So far next point is concerned as to whether petitioners are entitled to any maintenance from the O.P.I find that the petitioner no.1 who has been examined as P.W.3 has stated about her marriage and an affidavit sworn by O.P. she has stated that petitioner no.2 to have born out of her relation with the O.P. In her cross-examination, even suggestion has not been made to the petitioner no.1 about her claim that petitioner no.2 is daughter of O.P. Thus, although petitioner no.1 is not entitled for any maintenance petitioner no.2 who is illegitimate daughter of the O.P. is entitled to maintenance from the O.P.” Accordingly a sum of Rs. 500/- has been directed to be paid on monthly basis for maintenance of the daughter/opposite party no.3. This quantification has been made after having considered the source of income of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to convince this Court with reference to an affidavit of the alleged wife of petitioner. I am afraid such an affidavit can be accepted at this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner also tried to criticize the impugned order on the ground that the same was ex parte. A bare perusal of the order would show that the petitioner had appeared and filed his objection/show-cause and thereafter laid evidence. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, supported the impugned order. It is contended that the same is based on legal appraisal of the evidence on record. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record including the impugned order. Learned court below critically analysed the evidence brought on record by the parties and thereafter has come to the conclusion that opposite party no.3 herein was born out of 3 sexual relationship between the petitioner and aforesaid Buchani Devi. Having found so it has been directed that opposite party no.3 herein is entitled to a sum of Rs. 500/- per month from the petitioner for her maintenance. Petitioner has not brought to the notice of this Court any provision which does not entitle an illegitimate child to claim and get maintenance. This Court thus does not find any patent illegality in the order of learned Principal Judge meriting interference. Since the matter has been considered on merit, the Interlocutory Application no. 1237 of 2010, filed under Section 5 of the limitation Act pales into insignificance. The application has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)