Doddi Nagulu vs Doddi Muthyalamma

B. Subhashan Reddy, J.—This Criminal Revision case is directed against the order granting maintenance by the Court of Sessions, reversing the order of rejection of maintenance by the Court of Magistrate. Respondents 1 and 2 have lodged a maintenance case claiming maintenance against the petitioner herein stating that the 1st respondent is the wife of the petitioner and that the 1st respondent begot the 2nd respondent through him. That was disputed by the petitioner and the Court of Magistrate found favour with the said plea taken by the petitioner and held that the 1st respondent is not the wife of the petitioner and that the 2nd respondent was not born out of their wedlock. This was reversed by the Court of Sessions holding that, even though there was a customary marriage inter se the petitioner and the 1st respondent, the same may not be valid and in that sense held that the 2nd respondent is an illegitimate child of the petitioner and ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. Mr. S. Sri Ramachandra Murthy, strenuously contends that the order of Magistrate is based on valid material and proper appreciation of evidence, while the Court of Sessions has reversed the same on untenable grounds. His case is that there is no legal infirmity so as to warrant the interference by the Court of Sessions of reverse the well considered order passed by the Court of Magistrate.

Respondents 1 and 2 are unrepresented and respondent No. 1 being a lady and respondent No. 2 being a minor boy, I have appointed Ms. Nanda R. Rao as Amicus curia to plead on their behalf. She counters the argument of Mr. Murthy stating that the Court of Magistrate was rather unfair in holding that the 1st respondent is not the wife of the petitioner and that the 2nd respondent was not born out of their wedlock and that, that was on gross misappreciation of evidence. She is serious about the aspersions cast on the character of the 1st respondent in stating her as unchaste lady changing the husbands very frequently. I am of the considered view that such a sweeping comment ought not to have been made by the Court of Magistrate. Be the case as it may, I do not find any error in the Order passed by the Court of Sessions in not granting maintenance to the 1st respondent but granting maintenance to the 2nd respondent. The order passed by the Court of Sessions has valid basis on the ground that even though valid marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent is not proved, the 2nd respondent is born to the petitioner through the 1st respondent and as such even if the 2nd respondent is an illegitimate child, he is entitled for maintenance. The quantum of maintenance granted is also a paltry sum of Rs. 50/-.

Ms. Nanda appearing for the 2nd respondent contends that the degree of proof required in maintenance cases arising u/s 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be put on par with higher degrees of proof required in a Court of common law remedy, be it regular civil of criminal proceedings. I accept her contention for the reason that the very object of the proceedings for maintenance is to provide, food, lodging and clothing, to the dependents in distress speedily. The intendment of Section 125 Cr. P.C. is to prevent vagrancy by compelling a person to support his wife or child or father or mother unable to support itself. That being the object and intendment, the above Section does not aim at determining legal rights. The powers of the Criminal Courts under the above Section are limited in scope and the orders passed thereunder are subject to any final adjudication that may be made by civil Court between parties respecting their civil rights and status. The proceedings therein are summary in nature and cannot be equated to cases like regular civil suit for maintenance or regular criminal prosecution for bigamy. The orders passed being tentative are subject to final determination of rights of parties by civil Court and are also liable to be varied with change of circumstances. When the said orders are subjected to final decision in the civil suit and are susceptible for removal by any decree passed in the civil proceedings, the degree of proof in maintenance cases arising u/s 125 Cr.P.C. is less and it is sufficient to prove that there was a physical union between a man and a woman for a considerable length of time and that a child is born through the said physical union from which springs a presumption that the child is born to the said person.

Suffice it to say that for the purpose of these proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. there is sufficient proof that the 2nd respondent is the illegitimate son of the petitioner and as such, the order of granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month by the Court of Sessions is sustainable and accordingly I affirm the said order. I also make it clear that, should the petitioner still wish to contest his paternity over the 2nd respondent, it is open to him to file civil suit seeking such declarations and such other remedy as he may deem fit and any observations made by the Court-below or by me shall not influence the said judgment in the event of such a suit being filed and in the event of such a suit being filed, the same shall be adjudicated on its own merits.

Subject to the above observations, this Criminal Revision case fails and is dismissed.

The Administrative Officer, A.P. Legal Aid and Advice Board is directed to pay Rs. 500/- to Ms. Nanda R. Rao who has been appointed as amicus curiae for Respondents 1 and 2, and successfully pleaded for them.