K.M.S. Mani vs Tamizharasi and Another

David Annoussamy, J.—On the ground that the revision petitioner has been neglecting both of them the respondents prayed for the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 200 per month.

The case of the revision petitioner was that he WAS not the husband of the first respondent, that she was already married to another person and that the child was 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 first 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 Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, dated 21.9.1981, 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 in as much as it violates S.112 of the Evidence Act. In a proceeding under S. 125 of the Crl.P.C., (Chapter IX) the court does not determine the status of parties and it does not given any finding having the value of res judicata in respect of the parentage or matrimonial status. The provisions of the 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 Ch IX, Crl.P.C., 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 under S.112 of the Tamil Nadu Birth and Death Registration Act, 1959, 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 his also produced five letters, Exs.P2 to P5 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 in spite of the various conflicting stands taken by the parties make out a prima facie case that the child was born to the revision petitioner. 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 be 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 cease to have effect. In the civil proceedings, which would be a full fledged trial, he can take advantage of the provisions of S.112 of the evidence Act. These provisions have no application in a proceeding under Ch. IX, Crl.P.C., which is summary and provisional in nature and does not decide finally the respective rights of the parties.

With these mode observations the revision petition is dismissed.