Béggg‘ingQyET OF £HHATT1$§ARH AT RTLA$9UR CRM.PNQ.35§§ af 2G0“? ‘Pgfitmngr Girijashankar 5am; San 9f 5hr? Dindayai Sahu, aged abou? 34 years, Occupafion Sérvme, §esiciem of Viikxge Baijafpur, pmsently residing a? Mohbhat‘rha Road, Near High School, Ward Naif» Eemei‘am, Poiiae Sfaiion and Tahsii Bemeiam, District Durg (6.6.) Versus Rgsgandent Kn. Bhur-ti $¢hu D/o Meem Bai Sahu D/o Farsadi Sahu, Minor, aged abouf K} years, ‘I'hr-ough ‘nezr nammi guarciécm mo‘rher' Maem Bat 3am; Residgm of Viilage Baijaipur‘, Occupa‘iion Agricuii‘urisi‘, P05? Ninwa, Paiiaz Sfa'iion and Tahsii Bameim, Sistrist Burg QCE.) (Petition under $ection 482 of the Cr.P.C.) ($3: Han'bia Mn "KP; $harmg‘ 3.} Shri P.P.5crhu with Shir-i S.P.5ahu, ccunsei for the getitioner. QRD‘ER {Passed an 4’“ Septem§sr3 ZGGQ} 1. The patitimer has. fiied this getition under .5action 482 of tha Code o‘F Crimina! Precedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code-‘3 for quashment 0f the order datad {1.7.2007 gassad by tha Additinmi iSessimw Judge, Bemetnmi in Criminal Revisian No.16/2007 affirming the arder dated 163.2007 passed by the Judisiai Magistrate. First (kiss! Bematam, in Criminal Ccsz N¢.4Z/2OQ5 whereby ieamgd Judiciai Magistrate First Ciass has awarded the maintenance Qf RSJOQQI- per mam?! tci ti‘w respmdant on tha ground of iiiegitimnte child. . The order is challenged on the ground that without there being my prima facie evidenca of paternity, the trial Court has awarded the maintenance end caused serious prejudiced to the petitioner. Jui\ a J ; 3. Brief fads leading 1‘9 fiiing of ‘rhis pe‘rifion is +ha‘!’ according Tc 1412 glzcding of Tha garfies' mother of fhe respondent was having some Emgh‘ relai‘ian wiTh fhe gafifiongr and as a resuh 0f such mici‘t rakvtim she conteivad. During 1112. course of pregnancy, one Tahsi! f’onchqyof MeaTing was convened. 30th ‘the. par-Ties have admi'rfed fhaEr ralotioni The [oe'ri‘rioner agreed To grovidz mainmmmce. of Rs.300!- per- mon‘rh +n The. child which wou!d be ul‘rimo‘rely berm bu'r ‘l'ho pe‘ri‘rioner has no? omvided any maintenance“ Application under 5ec1'ion 125 of the Code was fiiod. The. patitioner- hasxspecificaily denied Tho aioim of' moin‘renonca and pa'ternify and pieodeud tho? Tohsi! Level C1151? Pamchayo’r hos forcibiy Taken his signomre on tha doouman? of alieged agreement Ha has nof yolun‘l’oriiy exeaned (my documant Affer apprecia'ring $112 evidence. ovailobie on record; The. trio! Cour-1' has awarded the maintznonce To The respondent which has been affirmed in “rho revision 4. I have heard iearned counsel for The pafifioner and perused the orde impugned and racords of fhe Courfs baiow, U! Lear-nod counsel for Tho pefitionzr submits fha‘!’ no legal marriage has been proved by any goari'y. 0n The basis of evidence of mother of The respondent gersons of fhe casfe ponchoyo‘i' and alleged axeam'ion of document, fhe. trial Cour-f has awarded fhe maintenance which is m3? legally aermissihle in evidence. Learned counsel furfher submifs fhai’ the pefi‘lioner himself has offered before The Trial Caurf for medical examination To decide The pa'rerni‘ry, bu? the trial Caurf has not direcfed for any medical examinaj‘ion by condiiefing DNA. “rest The evidence of members of foe caste panchayaf is noi admissible in 3 evidence é. From aerosol of the s'tafemeni of mofher of fhe respondenf if reveals fhaf she has made specific allegafion against the {ieiifioner fhaf the [oefifioner was having illicit relation with her and she conceived as a resul'i of such reiafion. When pregnancy come info knowledge of The r pargnfs of ma‘rhar of The respandant fhen Tahsii Laval Casfe Mawing was canvaned Wham befh the pnrfies have. ctdmHfed Their relmmns and #ha presen‘r gefifianer has admi'rmd, fha‘r he wiH pay maimemnce. m‘ Rs,3QQ/- {gar manfh 'm fhe child who born as a. resuH' 9f 5min pregnamw, bu‘r' he has no? prévided any maimenance. Th3 facmm Qf Tabs?! Lzvgi Panchaya? Mee'téng has been cormbom‘red by Panchmm $ahu (PW-2; Pmsidam, Tahgi! Lavg! Commi?+ea and has depgsed Thai ExPfi was execufed by bc‘rh fha parfies befar-z fhe. members 9f the pamhayat Execu'fion of We document? ha$ n‘o? bean denied by The. pmifionar, bu? has dapésed That mambzrs of The ganchayaf have obminad his signature Linda!" gressure. in “the year 1997,. bu? ha has nof cha!§angad ‘H'le. dacumen‘r. Afmr fhe bir‘l’h of the respondent name of 'rhe pafi‘tionar has been memionad in the birth an‘try regis'rar vide. EXP/2. , Evidence of moi-her- of The resyandent, documen? ExP/l 9f panchaye’ri evidenge. 0f President 9f panchgyat and admissian 0f 'rha exacmign of fhe dacumem by fhe pe‘ti‘tioner are suffiaigm‘t far c§mwing infamnce ‘rhaf The, responden? is illegi‘timam chik! of fhe- pe+i?ianen . ThEs is a preceeding under Secticm 12$ 9f the Cede for providing speedy remedy m fhe lagifimate. or- i'iegifima‘tz CHM wi'fh a. view tn save himJher from immadia‘l’z des'ri‘mfion and vagrancy and does no? decide final claim 9f “me par-fies and the perfies are required +0 agifefe 'rheir shims finaily before fhe Civil Court. I do no? find, any Sco'ne for interference in The order impugned. e Cansequen'riy, ‘Hwe gefi‘fion has ne force, same is §iabie to be dismissed and if is hereby diemiesed (11* fhe mO‘Hcm s‘tczge itseH‘.