Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rajaram Sarjerao Aher, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the judgment and order dated 3rd February 1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal Revision Application No.415/1994. The Sessions Judge had partly allowed the revision and awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.150 to respondent No.2 (minor child Manoj) from the date of the application under Section 125 CrPC. The background is that Ahilyabai, wife of the petitioner, filed an application under Section 125 CrPC on 29th August 1992 before the Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Ahmednagar, seeking maintenance for herself and her minor son Manoj (then three months old). She alleged that her marriage with the petitioner took place on 27th June 1991, and after two months of good treatment, the petitioner started ill-treating her and ultimately drove her out of the house. She claimed that the petitioner performed a second marriage and refused to maintain her and the child. The petitioner denied the marriage and paternity of the child. The Magistrate awarded maintenance to the wife and child. The petitioner filed a revision before the Sessions Court, which set aside the maintenance to the wife but upheld maintenance to the child at Rs.150 per month from the date of application. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The legal issues were whether the petitioner could deny paternity of the child born during wedlock and whether the maintenance amount was proper. The petitioner argued that he was not the father and that the child was not born from him. The court analyzed that the child was born during the subsistence of the marriage, and the petitioner failed to prove non-access to his wife at the time of conception. The court relied on the presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that a child born during wedlock is legitimate. The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, upholding the maintenance order. The decision was in favor of the respondent (minor child).
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC - Paternity Denial - Husband cannot deny paternity of child born during wedlock without proving non-access - The court held that the petitioner failed to prove that he had no access to his wife at the time of conception, and thus the child is entitled to maintenance (Paras 4-6). B) Criminal Law - Maintenance - Quantum - Maintenance awarded from date of application - The court upheld the award of Rs.150 per month to the minor child from the date of application, noting that the amount is reasonable and the petition was pending since 2001 (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner can deny paternity and avoid maintenance liability under Section 125 CrPC when the child was born during wedlock and no evidence of non-access was produced.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Additional Sessions Judge awarding maintenance of Rs.150 per month to respondent No.2 (minor child) from the date of application under Section 125 CrPC.
Law Points
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
- Paternity denial
- Burden of proof
- Maintenance from date of application
