Ganta Rama Rao vs Biddika @ Boora Sundari @ Sundaramma and Others

Subhashan Reddy, J.—This petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. seeks to quash the maintenance proceedings in M.C. No. 28 of 1994 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram.

The 1st respondent, on behalf of her minor son-the 2nd respondent herein, claimed maintenance against the petitioner stating that when the petitioner was working as Constable in APSP V Battallion at Chintalavalasa Vizianagaram, which was nearer to his native place Lakkaguda, she was working in the quarters where the police were stationed to counter the naxalite attack and the petitioner was one among them staying in those quarters. Both belong to Harijan commu- nity. The 1st respondent''s case is that She was unmarried and the petitioner lured her with money and promising her to marry, had sexual intercourse with her and consequently, she became pregnant and gave birth to the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to some other distant place and respondents 1 and 2 having become out of sight, became out of his mind and when the 1st respondent later met and contacted him to marry her, he flatly denied by making a statling revelation that he was already married and the question of again marrying her did not arise. The factum of the first marriage was never disclosed to the 1st respondent and he was residing alone in Elvinpeta police quarters and lured her stating that both belong to same community and both were unmarried he would marry her and believing his statement to be true, she fell prey to his amorous desires innocently.

Realising that she was not legally married and already there was a wife to the petitioner, she had filed M.C. No. 28 of 1994 invoking the provisions u/s 125, Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for her minor child - 2nd respondent herein.

The petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent power, of this Court u/s 482, Cr.P.C. to scuttle the said maintenance proceedings on the ground that the maintenance proceedings are false, that the said proceedings are abuse of the process of law, that the 1st respondent is not at all concerned with her, that she is the wife of one Boora Gajendra and that Boora Gajendra had also issued notice to her to come and join him alongwith the 2nd respondent.

Section 482, Cr.P.C. can be invoked only when apparently on the face of the averments in the maintenance case, the maintenance claim is unsustainable and the enquiry is unwarranted. But, here is a case where there is a dispute as to whether there was physical contact inter se the petitioner and the 1st respondent and whether the child-2nd respondent herein is the outcome of the said physical intimacy. On the admitted facts in the maintenance case that the 1st respondent was not married to the petitioner and that she was exploited for having pre- marital sex on the promise by the petitioner to marry her, maintenance claim for herself would have become unsustainable. But, she did not claim any maintenance for herself but claimed maintenance for her child - the 2nd respondent - stating that the child is born to the petitioner out of the illicit intimacy. u/s 125, Cr.P.C. illegitimate children are entitled for maintenance and as such, the 2nd respondent has filed maintenance case through his mother and natural guardian- the 1st respondent, and absolutely there is no illegality or infirmity in the said proceedings and the contentions raised in the maintenance case that the 2nd respondent was born to the petitioner and that the petitioner is liable to maintain him have got to be gone into the maintenance case and for the enquiry and adjudication are necessary. There is no ground to scuttle or interdict the said proceedings.

As on date, there are 30 million street children in the country. The growing phenomenon of street children in the country is stupendous and minibog- gling. Sadly, these children are social out caste, devoid of family life and are strangers to the feelings of love, affection, care and concern. They live in night- marish world of gloom without hope. The community has been shunning and ignoring their sub-human existence. They are like wild flowers whithering even before they blossom. Sadly, the heartless world transforms many of them into hardened criminals. The bold step of the 1st respondent in projecting the cause even risking her reputation that she had indulged in illicit sex with petitioner even without marriage, in order to save the 2nd respondent with regard to his livelihood and status, has got to be appreciated. Of course, the 1st respondent has to prove that the petitioner had fathered her son-the 2nd respondent herein, and that burden of proof is certainly on her as the petitioner has denied his fatherhood.

In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.