AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
David Annoussamy, J.—On the ground that the revision Petitioner has been neglecting both of them the Respondents prayed for
maintenance to the tune of Rs. 200 per month.
The case of the revision Petitioner was that he was not the husband of the 1st Respondent, that she was already married to another person and
that the child was not born to him.
The trial Court after perusing the evidence adduced by both the sides, consisting of the oral evidence of the first Respondent and the oral
evidence of the revision Petitioner and other six documents filed by the Respondents decided that the 1st Respondent was not the wife of the
revision Petitioner, disallowed her claim for maintenance for her and granted maintenance to the child, who at the time of the claim was thirty days
old, at the rate of Rs. 75 per month. This order of the Addition Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, dated Sept.21, 1981, is challenged in
the present revision petition.
The case of the revision Petitioner is that the finding of the magistrate that the child was born to the revision Petitioner is illegal inasmuch as it
violates Section 112 of the Evidence Act. In a proceeding u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Chapter IX) the court does not determine
the status of parties and it does not give any finding having the value of resjudicata in respect of the parentage or matrimonial states. The provisions
of Chapter are meant to preserve peace and avoid strife in society by providing immediate relief to parties who are neglected, and who otherwise
would resort to vagrancy, mendacity or other anti-social activities. In a proceeding under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the role
of the Magistrate is only to find out whether there is a prima facie case in the claim of the person approaching the Court for an immediate relief. He
has no time, nor jurisdiction to embark upon an elaborate enquiry.
In this case, the Magistrate found that there was Ex.P1 viz., the extract of the certificate of births, which is issued u/s 112 of the Tamil Nadu
Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969, by the Registration unit of Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, which shows that the revision Petitioner is the father
and the first Respondent is the mother of the child. The first Respondent has also produced five letters, Exs.P2 to P6, which are said to have been
written by the revision Petitioner to the first Respondent and which disclose some intimate links existing between the parties. These documents
inspite of the various conflicting stands taken by the parties make out a prima facie case that the child was born to the revision petition. The
Magistrate was perfectly entitled to afford to the child the relief he did.
It is open to the revision Petitioner to move the Civil Court, if he is so advised, in order to have the parentage of the child determined finally and
authoritatively and thereafter, if the decision goes in favour of the revision Petitioner, the order of the Magistrate would automatically ceased to
have effect. In the Civil Proceedings, which would be a full fledged trial, he can take advantage of the provisions of Section 12 of the Evidence
Act. These provisions have no application in a proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is summary and
provisional in nature and does not decide finally the respective rights of the parties.
With these observations the revision petition is dismissed.