Gunwant Bhagwan Wakode vs Madhuri Gunwant Wakode

D.J. Moharir, J.—This Revision Application u/s 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 155/88. The petitioner Gunwant Bhagwan Wakode is a Government servant and according to the minor respondent Madhuri, he is her putative father. She claims to have been born to the present petitioner from one Pushpa d/o Vithova Butale.

An application for grant of maintenance allowance u/s 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code was made by the respondent through her mother Pushpa alleging that Pushpa and the revisional petitioner used to live at a very short distance from each other in the Talao Fail area at Yavatmal. They came to know each other, became intimate and upon promise of marriage, Pushpa physically surrendered herself to Gunwant. She conceived from him and in the first instance gave birth to a female child which died soon thereafter. Pushpa continued to live with Gunwant thereafter also and became pregnant second time from him. She gave birth to the respondent on 17-8-1987. There-after, the petitioner had not bothered to see how she was being maintained by the mother. It was, therefore, a clear case of neglect as also refusal on the part of the putative father to properly maintain her. She, therefore, claimed entitlement to the maintenance allowance. An application was accordingly filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yavatmal vide Misc. Criminal Application No. 144/87.

The petitioner Gunwant disputed his paternity of the child and submitted that he was being falsely held responsible for the conception of Pushpa, the birth of the child Madhuri and was only thus, being fastened with liability to provide maintenance to her. Upon contest, not only Gunwant and Pushpa and also witnesses were examined on behalf of each of them. Upon consideration of the evidence, the learned Magistrate held that Gunwant''s paternity of the minor applicant Madhuri had not come to be established. He, therefore, dismissed the application.

Upon a Criminal Revision Application preferred to the Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the matter held that the learned Magistrate had clearly fallen into an error in holding that Gunwant''s paternity of the child Madhuri had not been established. In fact, accordingly to him, the evidence on record was overwhelming enough to hold that Pushpa and conceived from Gunwant and had given birth to Madhuri on 17-8-1987. He, therefore, allowed the Criminal Revision Application and passed an order directing Gunwant, as the putative father of Madhuri, to pay to her a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 100/-. That is the order which is now being challenged by the present petitioner u/s 482 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India also.

I have been meticulously taken through the entire record by the parties. The submission of Shri D.K. Deshmukh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not indeed have sufficient conclusive evidence to establish that Madhuri was born to Pushpa from Gunwant. According to him, it ought to have been seen that the evidence as to where Pushpa had lived, whether with Gunwant in the house in which Gunwant himself was living with his elder brother Ganesh or elsewhere and whether there was, therefore, any opportunity for these two persons to know each other, come into contact and develop sexual intimacy. He, therefore, drew my attention to the categoric denials in the written statement filed in the first instance, in the deposition of the petitioner as also the evidence of his witness. The witness to whom the learned Counsel refers rather anxiously is Damodhar Thakare who says that he does know so the Pushpa and Gunwant and the child Madhuri. The petitioner Gunwant and Pushpa were known to him because they were residing just adjacent to his house in Talaofail. While the petitioner Gunwant was residing in the Talaofail area, along with his brother, he did not say whether, according to him, Pushpa was living there. He only mentioned that he did not see Pushpa mother of the respondent Madhuri, residing in the house in which the petitioner was living, that he used to see Gunwant, his brother Ganesh and his wife only in the said house. This is a piece of evidence on which the maximum reliance was sought to be placed by the learned Counsel Shri Deshmukh. That unfortunately cannot be sufficient for there is much more and overwhelming evidence, apart from Pushpa''s oral assertion of becoming pregnant from Gunwant, to give birth to Madhuri. There is considerable documentary evidence of consequence as also the oral testimony of a witness whom Gunwaut himself examined as his own.

Pushpa has deposed that upon her giving birth to Madhuri, she had reported to the hospital authorities that the father of the child was Gunwant and that the records had been accordingly prepared. In fact, at the time of her very admission to the maternity home or hospital, she had claimed herself to be the wife, though not formally so, of Gunwant. The certificate of birth issued by the Yavatmal Municipal Council is also on record and it shows that Madhuri is shown to have been born on 17-8-1987, with Pushpa as her mother and Pushpa shown as the wife of Gunwant Wakode. Thus, Pushpa had asserted openly that the child was born to her from Gunwant. There was no secrecy maintained about this. The absence of any such secrecy is further manifested by the fact that sometime even prior to the birth of Madhuri on 17-8-1987, she had also made an application to the Superintendent of Police, at Yavatmal, Therein she made a complaint against Gunwant. She alleged therein that Gunwant had, upon promise of marrying her, seduced her to have sexual intercourse with him, that she had become pregnant from him on two occasions. The first delivery was of a female child which died and then again, continuing to reside with Gunwant she had conceived a second time to give birth to the present applicant Madhuri. She was thereafter completely neglected by Gunwant. She complained to the Superintendent of Police by this application dated 30-7-1987 that she had completed 8th month of pregnancy and that Gunwant was making efforts to drive her out of the house. She wanted an enquiry to be made in regard to the false promise of marriage given by Gunwant and cheating her into sexual intercourse with him. She also claimed the relief of some need for money to maintain herself and the child to be born. The date of this application dt. 30-7-1987 is, in my opinion, most crucial because as stated therein, Pushpa was in the 9th month of pregnancy and did give birth to the child Madhuri on 17-8-1987. These two documents on record are, therefore, indeed of the highest importance, which was duly attached to them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. What is however, of climaxing importance is the testimony of Manorama Atkar, It is admitted that Gunwant had been residing in Manorama''s house as a tenant. In fact, that is his own case. Manorama, as the landlady, therefore, deposed, entering the witness box for Gunwant, that Gunwant''s brother Ganesh was her tenant, that Ganesh, his wife and Gunwant were residing in her house, that she also knew Pushpa Vithova Butale who lived at a short distance from her house. On crossexamination, the very clear admission which Manorama had made is that Pushpa Butale had also been in fact, staying with petitioner Gunwant in her house, that she gave birth to a female child which so living in her house along with the petitioner Gunwant, that the petitioner Gunwant had thereafter left her house. She also stated that she had no grievance against him because due rent had been paid to her also. This establishes that the witness has no animust whatsoever against the petitioner Gunwant apart from the fact that she was called by him only as his witness.

This evidence of Manorama, therefore, lends further credence to the testimony of the old man Bajirao, aged 65 years. He has stated quite assertively that the petitioner Gunwant and Madhuri''s mother Pushpa were residing in one room as tenants, that they cohabited for 3 years, in the said room and stating frankly at the same time that he was not aware whether they had been legally wedded husband and wife. According to him, they did, however, live as husband and wife. A considerable length of cross-examination failed to achieve any result. The witness has asserted the fact that Pushpa and Gunwant had lived as wife and husband. In the circumstances, there is little objection that can now be left to be taken and challenge to be raised to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Quite obviously, there was an error apparent on the face of the record so far as the decision given by the learned Magistrate was concerned. It was an entirely perverse appreciation of the evidence by the learned Judicial Magistrate making it incumbent upon the learned Additional Sessions Judge to intervene and correct the illegality committed. That jurisdiction, upon a perusal of the record, must be found to have been rightly exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The Criminal Revision Application is, therefore, without any substance and would have to be rejected as no other contention, apart from Gunwant''s paternity of the child, came to be raised here. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.