IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 RPFC.No. 383 of 2007() ---------------------- MC.153/2002 of FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN M.C.NO.153/02 ------------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE JELSON, S/O.JOHN JACOB, AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEDUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 027. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.C.S.DIAS SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENT(S): IST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN M.C.NO.153/02 --------------------------------------------------------- 1. JESAL JELSON, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE JELSON, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, NIMAL PETER, AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT VELLOLIL HOUSE, SOUTH CHITTOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 027. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.S.MOHAMED HASHIM SMT.CAROLIN SINDHU VAZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 383 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Ernakulam in M.C.153/02. The 8 month year old child is the applicant before the Court represented by his mother against the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner has denied the paternity of the child and would contend that the lady is of loose moral and paternity cannot be conferred on him. The Court below appreciated the evidence and referred the matter for a D.N.A. Test. D.N.A.test revealed that the revision petitioner herein is the biological father of the child. Though attempts were made to challenge the DNA test no evidence was tendered to disprove the same. The Court below also relied upon the decision of this Court to the effect that there need not be examination of the expert for accepting the R.P.(F.C.) NO. 383 OF 2007 -:2:- report as per S.293 of Cr.P.C. Since the scientific analysis proves the paternity of the child I cannot find fault with the Court below in holding that the revision petitioner herein is the father of the child. 2. Now we have to consider about the quantum. The child was only 8 months old at the time of filing of the petition. The revision petitioner is an auto rickshaw driver by profession. The Court fixed his income at Rs.3,750/- and fixed a maintenance of Rs.1,000/- for a small child of 8 months. There need not be an amount of Rs.1,000/- at that stage and therefore I am inclined to refix the quantum of maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/- from the date of petition till the date of order, i.e.14.11.06 and at the rate of Rs.1,000/- from 15.11.06 onwards. I also confirm the finding regarding the payment of amount regarding the expenses for DNA test etc. In the result R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of by modifying the order of maintenance to be paid to the child at the rate of Rs.800/- from the date of petition till 14.11.06 and at the rate R.P.(F.C.) NO. 383 OF 2007 -:3:- of Rs.1,000/- from 15.11.06 onwards. The mother is entitled to realise the amount on behalf of the child. The order of costs for DNA test etc. awarded by the Family Court are sustained. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-