Bombay High Court
Chandrashekhar @ Atul Mansukhlal ... vs Shabnam Bano Chandrashekhar on 17 June, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 918.cr.wp.760.06
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 760 OF 2006
Chandrashekhar alias Atul s/o Mansukhlal Jain,
Age : 34 years, Occupation : Nil,
R/o Tamaswadi, Tq.Parola,
District Jalgaon.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
Kum.Shabnam Bano d/o Chandrashekhar,
Age : 6 years. Through Kum.Sabera d/o
Razak Bagwan (legal guardian).
R/o Tamaswadi, Indira Nagar, Tq.Parola,
District Jalgaon.
...RESPONDENT
...
None for the Petitioner.
Advocate for Respondent : Shri D.S.Pawar h/f Shri K C Sant.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 17th June, 2016
Oral Judgment :
1 None appeared for the Petitioner on 14.06.2016. The matter
was adjourned to this date for dismissal. None appears for the Petitioner
even today. Though I could have dismissed this petition in default, I am
deciding the same on it's merits.
2 The Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
*2* 918.cr.wp.760.06
30.04.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parola by
which the Petitioner is directed to pay Rs.500/- per month as maintenance
allowance to the minor daughter Shabnam, who is born out of illicit
relations between the Petitioner and her mother.
3 The Petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment and order
dated 05.10.2006 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has
dismissed Criminal Revision Application No.84/2004.
4 The Petitioner contends that he is educated unemployed and
physically handicapped person. He is a marginal land holder and he has
no independent source of income.
5 The Petitioner denied the contentions in the application for
maintenance that he had any relationship with the mother of the minor
child. On account of instigation of evil persons a false story is put forth
against the Petitioner. He is a Hindu and therefore, could not have kept
illicit relationship with a Muslim lady and more so, since he was married
and had one son from the said wedlock.
6 It is further submitted that though the Respondent examined
six witnesses, out of which, one was the Medical Officer and one was the
*3* 918.cr.wp.760.06
Panch, their testimony deserves to be disbelieved. The grant of
maintenance allowance of Rs.500/- per month to the Respondent/ child is
unsustainable.
7 It is further contended that the Medical Officer has stated in
his cross-examination that paternity could be ascertained only by DNA
test. Such DNA test was not conducted because the mother of Respondent
was not willing to be party to such a test. She did not appear before the
Civil Surgeon and hence, the DNA test could not be conducted. It is,
therefore, prayed that the impugned orders be quashed and set aside.
8 The learned Advocate for the Respondent has supported the
impugned orders. He submits that on the basis of sequence of events and
evidence on record, the paternity was established and only on account of
the same, the learned Magistrate has granted maintenance allowance at
the rate of Rs.500/- per month.
9 I have considered the contentions of the Petitioner set out in
the petition and the submissions of the learned Advocate for the
Respondent.
10 This Court while admitting this petition on 09.04.2007
*4* 918.cr.wp.760.06
concluded that the Petitioner has failed to make out any case for interim
relief and the prayer for interim relief was, therefore, rejected.
11 The mother of the Respondent examined herself along with
several other witnesses. It was established that she had left her home on
07.09.1997 after the Petitioner promised her of marriage. They stayed
together at Ajmer and Jaipur and then rented a room in Karwal Nagar at
New Delhi upto 21.03.1998. After she conceived in this period, the
Petitioner and the said lady reached the house of her maternal brother at
Surat. The said maternal brother deposed that the lady and the Petitioner
resided in his house on 24.03.1998 and it was disclosed to him that she
has conceived a child from the Petitioner.
12 Dr.Raghuwanshi, Medical Officer of Cottage Hospital, Parola
deposed that he had examined the lady and the Non Applicant on
31.03.1998 and found that she was pregnant by about 22 to 24 weeks.
13 Two panch witnesses deposed that they visited the places of
occurrence where the lady and the Petitioner had lived together and had
drawn Panchanama as they were Panch witnesses. The lady had also
produced the birth certificate on record mentioning the name of the
Petitioner as the biological father.
*5* 918.cr.wp.760.06
14 The learned Magistrate, therefore, took into account the
entire sequence of events and depositions of witnesses and concluded that
the Petitioner and the lady had travelled together at difference places and
on account of the relationship between them, the Respondent/ child was
born. In this backdrop, the learned Magistrate considered the effect of
Section 125(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and concluded that
even an illegitimate child was entitled for maintenance.
15 Considering the above, I do not find that the learned
Magistrate had committed any error in passing the impugned order. The
revisional jurisdiction of the Revisional Court being limited, therefore, led
the Revisional Court to pass the impugned order and dismiss the revision
petition.
16 In the light of the above, I do not find any merit in this
petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
