Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Rajesh vs Bhagyalakshmi on 17 July, 2014

Author: Harun-Ul-Rashid

Bench: Harun-Ul-Rashid, Alexander Thomas

       

  

  

 
 
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                           PRESENT:

                       THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID
                                                  &
                     THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

                THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2014/26TH ASHADHA, 1936

                                  OP (FC).No. 308 of 2014 (R)
                                     ----------------------------

PETITIONER:
---------------------

            RAJESH
            S/O THANAYATH RADHAKRISHNAN, NADAVARAMBU DESOM
            MUYKUNDAPURAM TALUK, TRICHUR DISTRICT.

            BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL

RESPONDENTS:
------------------------

        1. BHAGYALAKSHMI
            D/O ULLATTIL BALASUBRAMANIAN, MULLURKKARA VILLAGE
            TALAPPALLY TALUK, THRISSUR DT. - 680 583.

        2. VIGNESH
            MINOR, S/O 1ST RESPONDENT, RESIDING DO.

            R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO
            R1 & 2 BY ADV. SMT.P.C.SMITHA

             THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-07-
2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP (FC).No. 308 of 2014 (R)
----------------------------

                                           APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE COURT, TRICHUR

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN
MP 243/2014

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MP 243/2014 IN MC 339/2013

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------

          NIL.

sdk+


                     ///True copy///




                                          P.S. to Judge



           HARUN-UL-RASHID & ALEXANDER THOMAS, JJ.
                   ==================
                     O.P(F.C) No. 308 of 2014
                   ==================
             Dated this the 17th day of July, 2014
                           J U D G M E N T

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

The respondent in M.C.No.339/2013 is the petitioner herein. The case was filed by the respondents herein seeking maintenance. The marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was solemnised on 27.12.2010. The 2nd respondent minor was born in the wedlock on 24.10.2011. The parties lived together till 11.5.2013. Alleging that the petitioner failed to provide maintenance to her and her son, she filed the maintenance case to provide maintenance to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- and a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondents respectively.

2. The petitioner disputed the paternity of the child and prayed that DNA test be conducted of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent to prove the paternity of the 2nd respondent. The wife objected the petition stating that there is no bona fide in filing the petition. The Family Court, vide the impugned order, marked as O.P.F.C.308/14 - : 2 :-

Ext.P3, dismissed the petition.

3. The child was born in the marriage. The marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was ceremonised on 27.12.2010. The child was born in the wedlock on 24.10.11. The parties were living together under the same roof. The learned Judge dismissed the petition observing that the impact of the DNA test is bastardising the child and the court should not permit such back door method to bastardise the child. The court below also observed that the petitioner has always opportunity to adduce other evidence to prove his contention of adultery.

4. The parties lived together under the same roof till 11.5.2013. Admittedly, the child was born on 24.10.2011. The petitioner has no case that he had no access during the said period or he has no sexual contact with his wife. The present petition is filed for the first time, only when the wife approached the court seeking maintenance in 2014. Before that he had no case that the minor child, for whom maintenance is claimed, is not his child. As contented by the respondents, there is no bona fide in filing the application at this stage and if he has got any doubt about the paternity of the child, after the birth of the child, he could have O.P.F.C.308/14 - : 3 :-

approached the proper forum for appropriate declaration. We do not find any infirmity, factual or legal, in declining the relief sought for by the petitioner before the court below. No sustainable grounds are made out by the petitioner to interfere with the impugned order. The Original Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE Sd/-
sdk+                           ALEXANDER THOMAS , JUDGE

          ///True copy///




                             P.S. to Judge