Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal application filed by Sunil Dadaji Katole under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the order dated 8.2.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Revision No.51 of 2010. The background is that the respondents, Bismillah Abbas Ali (alias Sunita) and her minor son Sachin Sunil Katole, had filed Misc. Criminal Application No.80 of 2008 under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Seloo dismissed that application on 26.3.2010. The respondents challenged that dismissal in Criminal Revision No.51 of 2010 before the Sessions Court, Wardha. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision in part, granting maintenance of Rs. 1,500 per month to the minor son Sachin, but dismissed the claim for maintenance for the wife. The applicant (father) then approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the Sessions Court's order. The facts reveal that the applicant was earlier prosecuted for rape in Sessions Trial No.117 of 2000, decided on 9th September 2002, and was acquitted on the ground that the prosecutrix (respondent no.1) was a consenting party for sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage. The legal issue is whether the father is liable to pay maintenance to his illegitimate child under Section 125 CrPC when the child was born out of a consensual sexual relationship. The applicant argued that since the mother was a consenting party, he should not be liable. The court analyzed that the obligation to maintain a child under Section 125 CrPC is not dependent on the validity of the marriage between the parents. The court held that the father is bound to maintain his illegitimate child, and the consent of the mother in the sexual relationship does not absolve the father from his duty. The court found no illegality or perversity in the Sessions Court's order and dismissed the application. The decision upholds the maintenance order for the minor child.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance for Illegitimate Child - Section 125 CrPC - Father's Liability - The court considered whether a father is liable to pay maintenance to his illegitimate child under Section 125 CrPC. The court held that the father is bound to maintain his illegitimate child, and the fact that the mother was a consenting party in the sexual relationship does not absolve the father from his obligation to maintain the child. The court upheld the Sessions Court's order granting maintenance of Rs. 1,500 per month to the minor child. (Paras 1-5) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance for Wife - Section 125 CrPC - Wife's Right - The court noted that the Sessions Court had dismissed the wife's claim for maintenance for herself, and that part was not challenged. The court did not interfere with that finding. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a father is liable to pay maintenance to his illegitimate child under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when the child was born out of a sexual relationship where the mother was a consenting party.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the application, upholding the Sessions Court's order granting maintenance of Rs. 1,500 per month to the minor child.
Law Points
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is payable to illegitimate child
- father's obligation not dependent on validity of marriage
- consent in sexual relationship does not absolve father from maintenance liability
