IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 9 of 2006() -------------------- MC.685/2004 of FAMILY COURT, MANJERI .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- CHATHAN POOZHIKUTHU, S/O. VADAKKUMPURAM CHAKKAN, POOZHIKUTHU HOUSE, KOLATHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS: --------------------------- 1. KALLIANI T., D/O. CHATHUNNI, THADATHILTHODI HOUSE, KOLATHUR, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SUKANYA - MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT, MOTHER, GUARDIAN. ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ============== R.P.F(C).No.9 OF 2006 =============== Dated this the 5th day of January 2010. JUDGMENT This is a revision preferred against the order of the Family Court, Manjeri in M.C.No.685/2004. The petition is filed for maintenance of the 2nd petitioner, a minor, by the mother as guardian. The contention of the 1st petitioner mother is that she had married the respondent and 2nd petitioner had been born in the wedlock and that he has neglected to maintain her and child. On the other hand the respondent would totally deny the relationship. The evidence in this matter consists of the oral testimonies of PW1 and RW1 and Exts.P1 to P3. The court below on analysis found that evidence is available to establish that 2nd petitioner is the child born to the respondent therein through the 1st petitioner and awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- as maintenance. It is against that decision the respondent in the maintenance petition has come up in appeal. Heard the counsel on both sides. Let me first analyse the documents. Exts.P1 is a marriage karar entered into between the 1st petitioner and the respondent in the petition. It is a registered document of the year 1993. It is stated therein that both of them were in love for quite a R.P.F(C).No.9 OF 2006 2 long time and therefore they have decided to marry. The document was registered and it can be seen from this registration copy that the original has not been received back and therefore it has been destroyed. So a registration copy is acceptable as secondary evidence and it is proved by the 1st petitioner who is a party to the document. The over all reading of Ext.P1 would reveal that the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent were in love and had finally got married and decided to live as husband and wife. So this document proves the probability of access of the revision petitioner to the 1st petitioner in the case. Ext.P2 is a Birth Register extract wherein the child was born on 10.8.1993 and the name of the father is shown as Chathan (Revision petitioner) and it was registered on 21.8.1993 and the stamp paper for the registration certificate was produced by the revision petitioner. It is also deposed by PW1 that it was the relative of the revision petitioner who had given the intimation about the birth and also regarding the other particulars. When the paternity was disputed the 1st petitioner in the petition moved an application for a DNA test and as directed by the court appeared before the hospital in the Rajive Gandhi Center for Bio-Technology on 11.7.2005. Though she was present, the revision petitioner did not attend it at all and therefore DNA test could not be conducted. It is also stated by the 1st petitioner that the revision R.P.F(C).No.9 OF 2006 3 petitioner came and directed her not to go for DNA test. So Ext.P1 and P2 coupled with evidence of PW1 indicates about the premarital relationship between the revision petitioner and Kallyani and also the child born to them. That is why the court below rightly pointed out that the revision petitioner was afraid to face DNA test for the reason that it will bring out the truth. So these materials are sufficient to hold that the 2nd petitioner before the Family Court was born to the revision petitioner in Kallyani and therefore the paternity stands proved. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned only an amount of Rs. 1,000/- has been awarded to be paid by a healthy capable man and therefore that also does not call for any interference. Therefore the revision lacks merits and hence dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns