IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2008 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1552 of 2004() ------------------------- CRRP.30/2001 of SESSIONS COURT, WAYANAD, KALPETTA MC.36/1994 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KALPETTA .................... PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------- C.RAMANKUTTY, S/O.GOVINDAN, AGED 42 YEARS, CHEMBANKUNNATH HOUSE, VYTIRI P.O. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 & 2 AND STATE ------------------------------------------------------ 1. KAMALAM, D/O.AYAPPAN, MARATHARY HOUSE, VYTIRI P.O. 2. SANTHOSH, (MINOR, REP. BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT), S/O.KAMALAM, MARATHARY HOUSE, VYTIRI P.O. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. KAMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. --------------------------------- Crl.M.C No.1552 of 2004 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of December, 2008. O R D E R Application for maintenance was filed by respondent No.1 and 2 herein under Section 125 of the Code contenting interalia that petitioner had married respondent No.1 in the year 1984, as per customary rites prevalent in the community at her house at Vythiri and that immediately after the marriage she was taken to the ancestral home of the petitioner and both of them lived there as husband and wife for about an year, when respondent No.2 was born. Ext.P1 birth certificate issued by the local statutory authority, clearly showed that petitioner is the father of respondent No.2. It was further contented by respondent No.1 that after about one year she was taken to the house of the petitioner at Vythiri. Petitioner started to treat respondent No.1 with cruelly and ultimately in December 1989 she was sent out of her matrimonial home. She claimed Rs.300/- per month for her maintenance and for the minor son she claimed a monthly maintenance of Rs.200/-. Crl.M.C No.1552 of 2004 : 2 : 2. In the counter statement it was contended by the petitioner that he had not married respondent No.1, as alleged. He also disputed the paternity of respondent No.2. According to the petitioner he had married one Thatha in the year 1972 and he had two children in the said wedlock. 3. It is not necessary to refer the various other pleadings of both parties. Similarly it is not necessary to deal with the entire evidence adduced by the parties before the trial Court. Suffice it to say that the trial court found that respondent No.1 did not succeed in proving her marriage with the petitioner. But as regards the paternity of respondent No.2 it was categorically held by the trial court that the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties was sufficient to hold that respondent No.2 is the son of the petitioner. 4. The learned Sessions Judge in revision had re-evaluated the oral and documentary evidence on record and concurred with the finding entered by the trial court. 5. It is contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court as well as the revisional court having found that there was no customary marriage between the petitioner and Crl.M.C No.1552 of 2004 : 3 : respondent No.1, it would be highly illegal and improper to fasten the paternity of respondent No.2 on the petitioner. He contends that the presumption under Section 112 will not be available in this case since the Courts below have concurrently found that there was no valid marriage. As regards Ext.P1 birth certificate, it is contended by the petitioner that the entries therein will not be conclusive to establish the paternity of respondent No.2. 6. I am afraid the above contentions raised by the petitioner are wholly misconceived and untenable. Having perused the evidence adduced by the parties, I have no hesitation to hold that respondent No.1 had succeeded in proving that respondent No.2 was born in the relationship between respondent No.1 and the petitioner. Ext.P2 voters list prima facie established that respondent No.1 had been living with the petitioner and Ext.P1 birth certificate clearly showed that the statutory authority had recorded the entry with regard to the birth of respondent No.1 in terms of the statutory provisions contained in the relevant rules. As long as the entry made in Ext.P1 is not set at naught in any manner known to law its legal sanctity can not be questioned or doubted. Undoubtedly, Ext.P1 is a public document and the entry therein has to be Crl.M.C No.1552 of 2004 : 4 : accepted as valid and correct. In that view of the matter reliance can be placed on Ext.P1. Therefore the contentions raised by the petitioner are repelled. The Crl.M.C is totally devoid of merit and therefore it is dismissed. Sd/- A.K.BASHEER JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge