IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RPFC.No. 239 of 2009()
1. RAJEEVAN, NELLYATTU VEEDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. LIJI, D/O.ONAKKAN, MEYANDOTHIL VEEDU,
... Respondent
2. RAJISHA, AGED 10 YEARS (MINOR)
For Petitioner :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE
For Respondent :SRI.A.ANTONY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :11/03/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.P.(F.C.) NO. 239 OF 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010.
O R D E R
This revision is preferred against the order of the Family
Court, Kozhikode in M.C.267/07. This is a case where the
marriage and paternity itself is in dispute. The Family Court
considered the materials and found in favour of the wife. It is
against that decision the husband has come up in revision.
2. Heard the counsel for both the sides. Parties
namely the lady and the man belong to two different
communities and they were neighbours. According to the wife
they had fallen in love and a marriage was solemnized on
29.7.97. Though they initially resided, according to her, in the
house of the husband, they have to shift the residence and
meanwhile she became pregnant and gave birth to the 2nd
petitioner on 29.6.98. It is also stated that as there was
opposition from the members of the family of the revision
petitioner they entered into a registered marriage Karar on
30.5.98. The recitals in Ext.A1 relates back to the marriage
and their agreement to live together.
R.P.(F.C.) NO. 239 OF 2009
-:2:-
3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner had
strongly challenged the finding on the question of marriage,
paternity and the quantum of maintenance and had taken me
through the entire judgment as well and he had referred to
certain documents. The contention of the learned counsel that
Ext.A1 has no legal effect can be answered as follows:
4. Ext.A1 does not ipso facto relates to the marriage
but it reiterates the factum of marriage and the Karar is
entered into. There is nothing to show there has been any
fraud or collusion so as to make that document invalid under
law.
5. The first petitioner was admitted in the General
Hospital at Thalassery and she gave birth to the child. The
child is named as Rajisha. All the documents relating to the
child including birth certificate would reveal that the mother of
this child is Liji Rajeevan and that of the father is Rajeevan. It
has also come out in evidence that the father of the revision
petitioner moved a suit for injunction which was dismissed by
the trial court and allowed by the appellate Court. So it is
R.P.(F.C.) NO. 239 OF 2009
-:3:-
clear that the father was not in good relationship with the son.
It is also seen that father had deposed about a marriage karar
in that suit. In order to find out the paternity of the child they
were referred to the Rajeev Gandhi Centre for Bio-technology,
Thiruvananthapuram and the report was in her favour of the
first petitioner to the effect that the revision petitioner is the
father of the child. An independent witness was examined as
PW2 and he speaks about the marriage and that the revision
petitioner tied ‘thali’ to PW1 and they exchanged garlands and
rounded the lamp three times. As against this RW2 was
examined and the Court below did not accept his evidence for
the reason it did not inspire confidence. So the totality of the
materials available would reveal that this man had connection
with the lady even prior to the marriage and they belonged to
different sects and the marriage was solemnized and it is
further strengthened by execution of a karar wherein it is
stated that they had been married. So as discussed and found
by the Court below the rigor of proof regarding a marriage u/s
125 Cr.P.C. cannot be as tough as one required to prove it in
R.P.(F.C.) NO. 239 OF 2009
-:4:-
a suit for declaration of the marriage or paternity. The sum
and substance of the materials would reveal that the revision
petitioner was living with the first petitioner and a child is born
to them in that connection and it is supported by evidence of
PWs.1 and 2 that there was a marriage in 1997 and the
members of the family of the revision petitioner had opposed
it. So I find the trial court has not committed any error which
requires interference at the hands of this Court.
6. So far as the quantum is concerned, the revision
petitioner is now working abroad and the Court has only
granted a maintenance of Rs.1,500/- to the wife and Rs.750/-
to the child. By any stretch of imagination it cannot be said to
be excessive and therefore the quantum also does not require
any interference. Therefore the revision lacks merits and the
same is dismissed. If any amount is paid or deposited that
shall be given credit to.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-