Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. MMO No.45 of 2003. Dated of Decision: July 07, 2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sanjiv Kumar …… Petitioner. Versus Miss Abhya (Minor). ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Jagdish Vats, Advocate. Surinder Singh,J (oral) : In this petition the challenge has been made to the order dated 10.3.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Kangra at Dharamshalla, whereby he affirmed the order dated 10.8.2002 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, to pay an amount of Rs.500/- per annum to the minor respondent, being his daughter. It is an admitted case of the parties that the petitioner herein was married to one Usha Devi. It is alleged that after the delivery of respondent Miss Abhya, she had died. After about six months, the petitioner herein married another lady named Anu and the custody of the minor child was given to - 2 - his sister Rachna (PW1), with an assurance that he would defray the expenses for her maintenance. Rachan aforesaid filed the petition for maintenance on behalf of the minor child wherein she alleged that her brother Sanjiv Kumar who had entrusted the custody of his child to her was not maintaining her despite his sources. In reply to the said petition, the petitioner denied the paternity of the minor child. According to him, his earlier wife died nine years back without any issue. He neither admitted the paternity of the child nor got her admitted admitted in any school. To substantiate the plea ,Rachna Devi the real sister of the petitioner herein, examined herself as AW1 and testified on oath that her aforesaid brother was married to Usha Devi and from this wedlock, she gave birth to Miss Abhya and thereafter she died. At that time there was nobody to look after the minor child, thus, her brother entrusted the custody of the said child to her on the assurance to defray all the expenses for her maintenance. She got her admitted into the school. Since her date of birth was required for the admission, she got entered her date of birth in the municipality. She further stated that the age of the minor girl was nine years, when she was examined in the court on 18.4.2002, which tallies to the year of death of Usha Devi. - 3 - Their neighbour AW-2 Pawan Kumar substantiated her version. On the other hand respondent examined himself and also examined Shri K.P. Rehlan. In his statement the petitioner produced the death certificate of her earlier wife and deposed that Smt. Usha had died on 4.4.1992 without any issue. Considering all these facts, the learned trial court found the substance in the evidence led on behalf of the minor petitioner and allowed the application as aforesaid and in the revision petition, filed by the petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge, dealt with the matter exhaustively and found force in the contention of the respondent herein. It was concluded that the evidence on the record suggests that when Miss Abhya minor was born immediately thereafter her mother Usha Devi had died, which means she was born in April, 1992. Therefore, in such a situation when sister of the petitioner himself who has no enmity with him, could be accepted as truthful and the inconsistency about the date of birth was because of the fault of the next-friend which cannot be allowed to prevail over the right of the minor girl. In my opinion, there is no cogent explanation as to why the real sister of the petitioner would have made a wrong statement against her real brother that Abhya is his daughter. - 4 - The petitioner could not rebut this statement of his real sister, nor imputed any allegation against her and prima-facie in view of her statement; the parentage of the minor Abhya stands established, which is enough to make the petitioner liable for the maintenance of the minor child in the summary proceedings under section 125 of the code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, no interference is called for in the orders of both the courts below. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. July 08, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.