IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2009 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1931 RPFC.No. 15 of 2004 ----------------------------- MC.NO.281/1992 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------- PRABHAKARAN, S/O.VAIRABHAN NADAR, KUZHAKKUMKARA VEEDU, ERUMAKUZHI, KOKKODI MURI, MANNOORKKARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR. RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------- 1. JOYIS, D/O.MEENAKSHI, KUZHAKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, ERUMAKKUZHI, KOKKUDI MURI, MANNOORKKARA VILLAGE. 2. SHIBU, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, KUZHAKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, ERUMAKKUZHI, KOKKUDI MURI, MANNOORKKARA VILLAGE. BY THIS REV. PETITION (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- R.P(F.C)No. 15 OF 2004 --------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March, 2009 O R D E R The unfortunate litigation started in 1992 and it has been pending in different stages for the last 17 years. The crucial question is to be considered in this case is with respect to an order of maintenance granted by the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram in favour of the 2nd petitioner in the maintenance case. According to the petitioners there was a marriage between the 1st petitioner and the respondent as per the custom prevailing in the Hindu Community on 20.11.1982 and a child has been born on 5.3.1983 and they are entitled to claim maintenance against the husband. The husband would contend that he had never married the 1st petitioner and that the child is not born to him in her and therefore he is not liable to pay any maintenance. After round of litigation, now the question is only to confirm the paternity of the child. This court as well as the trial court in an earlier round of litigation held that there is no proper evidence to prove that the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and therefore declined maintenance to her. R.P(F.C) 15/2004 -2- 2. In this case there are few interesting aspects which has to be considered. Admittedly the alleged marriage had taken place only on 20.11.1982. The child has born on 5.3.1983 i.e about 4 ½ months after the date of alleged marriage. Explanation tendered by the wife is that before the marriage there was connection between the present revision petitioner and the 1st petitioner and when she was about 1 ½ months of pregnancy there was a mediation from the Panchayath and ultimately it is stated that it had lead into the marriage. The two documents relied upon are the Birth Certificate as well as the extract of the School Admission Register. The child was born in a Government hospital at Peroorkada on 5.3.1983 and the name of the father is shown as the present revision petitioner. The date of birth is 5.3.1983. So far as the School Admission Register extract is concerned, the name of the father is shown as the present revision petitioner but the date of birth is 10.5.1983. It is a well settled proposition of law that entries in a Birth Register extract will have much more importance and evidentiary value than the date of birth shown in the School Administration Register obviously for the reason that there is always tendency R.P(F.C) 15/2004 -3- for the parents to change date of birth of the child in order to achieve them early admission in the School. 3. The courts below have analysed the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4. The court found that PW1 has clearly spoken about the relationship between her and the present revision petitioner and they have cohabitated together and it has been also been supported by PW3 and PW4. The early round of litigation the evidence of these witness had been analysed and even this court has expressed the opinion that the evidence of PW3 is entitled to weight. The trumph card of the revision petitioner is Ext. D1 which is produced to show that the 1st petitioner in the M.C has married one Sasi in November 1981 and Ext. D1 is the photocopy of the report submitted by the Executive officer. The court below held that the said document is not properly proved and therefore did not give much importance to the evidentiary value of this document. Even if it is true, the factum that has to govern the field so far as this case is concerned is whether there was a cohabitation between the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent herein so as to draw a presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act regarding the access. Analysing the R.P(F.C) 15/2004 -4- evidence of PW1 it can be seen that there was a marriage most probably which was done under force immediately in 1983. She approaches the court immediately after delivery of the child for maintenance in 1987 and ultimately the present petition in 1989 which has been transferred to another court and renumbered in 1992. An over all analyse of the entire materials available would positively indicate the fact that the revision petitioner had connection with the 1st respondent herein and that the 2nd petitioner was the child born in March 1983. So it has to be held that the 2nd respondent herein is the child born to the present revision petitioner in the 1st respondent. The evidence had been properly analysed by the Family Court to arrive at a correct decision. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or misappreciation of evidence which calls for interference by this court exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Therefore the R.P(F.C) lacks merit and accordingly it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm