GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER FOR MD. JEHERUL ISLAM V/S SMTI. AMIYA BEGAM & ANR.

GUWAHATI, India, Nov. 30 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Oct. 30:

1. Heard Mr. N.H. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2.

2. The instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner invoking section 397/401 of Cr.P.C as if existed then (read with Section 482 Cr.P.C.). Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 06.08.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta in M.R. 438/2012, whereby, the maintenance allowance @ Rs.4,000/- per month was directed to be given to minor son of the respondents and the maintenance was to be paid from the date of the judgment and order and the respondent no.1, Smti. Amiya Begum stated to be his minors' mother was allowed to receive the maintenance.

3. The present revision has come in the backdrop of earlier round of litigation between the parties. The respondent no.1 had filed Maintenance case being M.R. 438/2012 seeking maintenance and the said proceeding was disposed of by the learned JMFC, Barpeta vide judgment and order dated 09.09.2013 dismissing the claim of the respondent no.1/1st party. However, criminal revision has filed against the same by the aggrieved party being Crl. Rev.P. 31/2013 was allowed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barpeta, setting aside the judgment and directed the trial Court to consider the maintenance prayer with regard to the child.

4. Against the same, the petitioner has preferred a (Crl. Rev.407/2015) before this Court, which was disposed of with a direction to the Court of the learned Magistrate to proceed as per the direction passed by the Sessions Revisional Court i.e. to determine the entitlement of the child. Pursuant thereof, the present impugned judgment and order dated 06.08.2018 came to be passed by the learned Family Court allowing the maintenance claim of the child, which was quantified at Rs.4,000/- per month payable from the date of the order.

5. In the earlier round of litigation, the claim of the respondent no.1 was negated on the ground of her not being legally married wife, as it emerged that she was the second wife of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner primarily contends that he is aggrieved by the direction for payment of maintenance to the child as because he denies being the biological father of the said child and submits in this regard that as the petitioner is not the father of the child therefore, he cannot be burdened with the liability of giving maintenance to the said minor.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits on the other hand that it is well settled that even if the child is begetted from an invalid marriage, he is entitled to get maintenance under the provision of Cr.P.C. (now BNSS). It is submitted by the learned counsel respondent that the petitioner though denied his paternity over the child has not preferred any civil proceeding for a declaration or for scientific evidence/test to determine the paternity.

7. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted the following decisions of this Court.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=rC8SUFuyEFsvB5V61cXUrKHWlBoNqcDTBe%2BVySuLy1m9DxnlAYh%2FFAQXt38754T7&caseno=Crl.Rev.P./386/2018&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010223292018&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.