Whether dispute of paternity can be raised again and again?
present suit, and the petitioner has raised it, it would have certainly needed
adequate attention of the Court. That, however, is not the case. Way back in
the year 1995, the respondents and their mother filed M.C.No.23 of 1995 in the
Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
The petitioner raised the same plea, as in the present suit, about his
relationship with the respondents. The trial Court rejected that plea and
allowed M.C.No.23 of 1995, through order dated 27-03-1996.
The petitioner could have felt grievance about two aspects, viz., the quantum of
maintenance, or the very obligation to pay it. Irrespective of the quantum of
maintenance ordered by the trial Court, if the petitioner was able to establish
that he is not under obligation to pay that at all, on the ground that the
respondents are not his children, he was supposed to challenge the findings
recorded in the M.C.
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is very clear and succinct in its purport. The
maintenance can be ordered by a Court against a person only in favour of his
wife, legitimate or illegitimate minor children, and parents. While the
relationship with the wife comes into existence on account of marriage, the
relationship with the children and parents is one, referable to sanguinity, or
through blood. The said provision does not recognize any other kind of
relationship for placing the person under obligation to pay maintenance.
A specific issue was framed in the M.C., and it was answered against the
petitioner. The plea that the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C are
summary in nature; cannot be accepted.
The reason is that the trial Court must record specific findings,
not only about the existence of relationship, but also the aspect of negligence.
Apart from that, the necessity of the persons, claiming maintenance, on the one
hand, and the financial status of the person, against whom it is claimed, on the
other hand; are required to be determined succinctly. That, in turn, needs
recording of evidence. When such is the state of affairs, the proceedings
cannot be said to be summary in nature.
The very fact that the petitioner was made to pay maintenance to the respondents
1 and 2 discloses that he was treated as their father, and by permitting the
order to become final, the petitioner had admitted that relationship. He cannot
be permitted to re-open the same, when the suit for partition was filed. The
trial Court has taken correct view of the matter.
Whatever may be the permissibility for a party to raise same questions in
different proceedings, the one, relating to parentage cannot be permitted to be
pleaded, repeatedly.
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
C.R.P.No.3334 of 2013
14-11-2013
Potu China Musalaiah..petitioner
Vs
Potu Yallamanda and another..Respondents
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
Citation: 2014(1)ALD558,2014(2)crimes 538 AP
https://www.lawweb.in/2014/06/whether-dispute-of-paternity-can-be.html
