Panch Ram and Another vs Ram Prasad Lodhi

Rajeev Gupta, J.—An innocent, hapless and meek child Panch Ram, after having lost his identity as son, though illegitimate, of non-petitioner Ram Prasad Lodhi, in the corridors of Court''s below, has knocked the doors of this temple of justice, through this revision petition, with few rays of hopes in his little eyes, for a declaration of his paternity and his entitlement to receive maintenance from his father Ram Prasad Lodhi.

Petitioner No. 2 Bhagaiya Bai filed an application u/s 125, Cr. P.C. claiming maintenance from non-petitioner Ram Prasad Lodhi, for herself and her minor child, petitioner No. 1 Pandi Ram. In the application it was stated that after obtaining divorce, in the customary form of ''chhod chhuti'' from her first husband, Bhagaiya Bai developed relations with non-petitioner Ram Prasad Lodhi. It was further stated that Bhagaiya Bai on account of these relations became pregnant, and on me advice of the non-petitioner, die said pregnancy was got terminated. In due course, Bhagaiya Bai again became pregnant. At me instance of the villagers, a Panchayat was convened, wherein Bhagaiya Bai disclosed mat she had become pregnant on account of her relations with the non-petitioner. Though the above fact was denied by the non-petitioner, but in pursuance to the decision of the Panchayat, Bhagaiya Bai was allowed to remain in his house, where she gave birth to petitioner No. 1 Panch Ram.

The Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, found that Bhagaiya Bai could not prove her status of ''legally wedded wife'' of non-petitioner Ram Prasad Lodhi, and as such she was not entitled to grant of maintenance. The Trial Court however, found it proved that petitioner No. 1 Panch Ram was an illegitimate child of the non-petitioner and, therefore/granted him maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month, until his attaining the age of majority. The maintenance was made payable from the date of application, which was filed on 10.9.1987.

Though Bhagaiya Bai remained satisfied with the dismissal other claim for maintenance, but non-petitioner Ram Prasad Lodhi, being aggrieved of the above grant of maintenance, filed a revision before the Court of Sessions. The Revisional Court vide order dated 6.1.1994, passed in Cr. Revision No. 66/93, set aside the above grant of maintenance to petitioner No. 1 Panch Ram. Hence, this revision before this Court by Panch Ram and his mother, Bhagaiya Bai.

Mr. Awasthy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, challenged the impugned order, passed by the Revisional Court, on the following grounds :

(i) The Revisional Court has erred in reversing the well-reasoned order of the Trial Court, which was based on the evidence adduced by the parties;

(ii) The Revisional Court has erred in over-looking the admissions made by non-petitioner Ram Prasad Lodhi and his witness, Derharam, in their statements before the Court; and

(iii) The Revisional Court has erred in setting aside the Trial Court''s order on irrelevant grounds, such as non-production of the oral and documentary evidence about the termination of the first pregnancy, at the instance of non-petitioner Ram Prasad Lodhi.

Mr. S.K. Tiwary, the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner, on the other hand submitted that the impugned order, passed by the Revisional Court, is based on evidence on record and, therefore, does not call for any interference in this revision.

Bhagaiya Bai, in her application filed u/Sec. 125, Cr. P.C., had specifically pleaded that on becoming pregnant for the second time, during the course of her relationship with Ram Prasad Lodhi, she gave birth to Panch Ram on 1.7.1987. The above facts were reiterated by Bhagaiya Bai, in her deposition, in the Court. In her cross-examination, no such material could be brought out, which may adversely effect the evidenciary value of her evidence. On the other hand non-petitioner Ram Prasad Lodhi, in his cross-examination, simply feigned ignorance about the above facts by saying. "Mujhe Naahin maloom ki mere taraph se punah use garbh thahra".''The fact that a Panchayat was convened and in the Panchayat Bhagaiya Bai had disclosed that her pregnancy was the outcome of her relations with the non-petitioner, is admitted by Ram Prasad Lodhi, in his cross-examination. Derharam, who was examined by Ram Prasad Lodhi as his witness, had admitted in his cross-examination that after the above Panchayat, Bhagaiya Bai had gone to the house of Ram Prasad Lodhi. He further admitted that during her stay in the house of the non-petitioner, Bhagaiya Bai gave birth to petitioner Panch Ram. In view of the above broad features of the case, the Trial Court had rightly granted maintenance to petitioner Panch Ram, holding him an illegitimate child of non-petitioner Ram Prasad Lodhi.

On perusing the impugned order, passed by the Revisional Court, it is found that the Revisional Court has completely over-looked the above mentioned broad features of the case, and has proceeded to decide the revision petition on irrelevant assumptions. Apparently the evidence, either oral or documentary, in regard to the termination of the first pregnancy, had no bearing on the issue, which was to be decided in the present case, as to whether non-petitioner Ram Prasad Lodhi is proved to be the father of petitioner Panch Ram, or not. The Revisional Court also appears to have lost sight of the fact that the proceedings u/Sec. 125, Cr. P.C. are of summary nature, and can never be equated with the proceedings of a civil suit for declaration. In this view of the matter, it is apparent that the Revisional Court fell into error, in setting aside the Trial Court''s order, granting maintenance to petitioner No. 1 Panch Ram.

The inevitable conclusion of the above discussion is that the impugned order, passed by the Revisional Court, is liable to be set aside, and that of the Trial Court, granting maintenance to petitioner No. 1 Panch Ram at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month till his attaining the age of majority, payable from the date of application, deserves to be restored.

For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition, filed by the petitioners, is allowed. The impugned order dated 6.1.1994, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon in Cr. Revision No. 66/93 is hereby set aside. The order dated 18.5.1993, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon in M.J.C. No. 30/1987 is restored.