ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Bench: JUSTICES N.L. Ganguley B. Dikshit
KM. AHILYA AND OTHERS On 20 Nov 1991
This is initial seductiveness underneath Section 19 of a Family Courts Act, 1984 by a purported father Kamal severe a visualisation and sequence of a Family Court in Criminal Suit No. 43 of 1989, by that a family Court awarded Rs. 100/- any to a 3 teenager children, Km. Ahilya, Ram Kumar and Km. Sukhmari alias Neelu, sum volume Rs. 300/- per month payable with outcome from a date of filing of a focus on 19.3.1989 for upkeep of a minors. The family Court after filing of a rapist fit underneath Section 125 Cr. P.C. released notice and a appellant submitted a created statement.
2. The box of a respondents is that Kamal-appellant and Dhanni Ram were dual genuine brothers. Smt Shanti was married to Dhanni Ram. Dhanni Ram died and after his genocide Smt. Shanti, according to custom, started vital with appellant Kamal as his wife. It was pleaded that out of a pronounced kinship 3 children Km. Ahilya, Raj Kumar and Km. Sukhmari were born. It was pleaded that given a appellant was not progressing a teenager children and profitable required expenses, it was not probable for a mom Smt. Shanti to yield upkeep to them. Hence, focus underneath Section 125 Cr. P.C. was filed. In a created matter it was approved that Dhanni Ram was a genuine hermit of Kamal-appellant. He emphatically denied that he ever kept or remarried Smt. Shanti. He catagorically denied that a 3 teenager children named above were ever innate out of a kinship with him and Smt. Shanti. He privately pleaded that he was physically unqualified of procreating children. He settled that he was already married and a mom was vital with him and there was no emanate innate out of a pronounced marriage. The appellant, in sequence to infer a earthy incompetence of procreating child, filed Medical Certificate of a alloy display that in a chemical exam of a seman there was no spermatozoa present. The medical certificate after examining his genuine mom was also filed to prove that she was able of temperament children.
3 The box of a appellant was that after a genocide of Dhanni Ram Smt. Shanti started vital with one Bhajju as his mom and a 3 children were innate out of a pronounced union. Number of papers were filed by a appellant to uncover that in a Kutumb Register and Votors’ List Shanti was shown to be a mom of Bhajju. The box of a other side was that Bhajju was next 20 years of age and Smt. Shanti was above 40 years in age. They were associated as Maami an Bhajja and as such it was not probable that such marital propinquity be formed, Bhajju was examined as a declare and a Court was gratified to approach him to furnish a propagandize certificate to find out his age.
4. The element doubt for adjudication of this initial seductiveness is either a 3 teenager children were innate out of a passionate propinquity of Kamal-appellant and Smt. Shanti. The appellant Kamal privately pleaded that he was unqualified of producing child on comment of earthy infirmity. An focus 47-B was changed on his seductiveness before a family Court for accede to serve Dr. R.K. Gupta of Maha Rani Luxmi Bai Medical College, Jhansi, besides a declare panchayat Adhikari and certain other witnesses. It is bizarre to find that there were there applications changed on seductiveness of a appellant on 4.4.1990 and sequence for usurpation a created matter was upheld by a family Court after remuneration of costs, no sequence was upheld on a focus 47-B.
5. No doubt, a family Court took heedfulness in dictating a prolonged visualisation after appreciating justification before it, though a applicable doubt that was a crux of a matter and solitary counterclaim of a appellant was wanting to be deliberate by a Court. It was required to have given an event to a appellant to furnish a declare Dr. R.K. Gupta, whose medical certificate after chemical exam of a semen was already on a record. Since a Court next unsuccessful to pass any order, a appellant was biased in his defence. The visualisation and sequence of a Court next can't be sub-stained in perspective of a critical irregularities committed by it.
6. After conference schooled Counsel for a parties we are of a perspective that it would be required in a seductiveness of probity that a seductiveness be authorised and a box be remanded to a Family Court with a instruction to give an event to a appellant to inspect a Doctor and other witnesses whom he intends to inspect in counterclaim of his case. The Court next shall take such stairs to confirm a box before him within a duration of 6 months from a date of filing a approved duplicate of this order. Any volume deposited on seductiveness of a appellant in pursuit of a halt sequence upheld by this Court, if not already paid a respondents, shall not be paid and a same might be payable after uninformed preference of a box according to law.
7. We a concede seductiveness and set aside a visualisation and sequence of a Court next and approach a Family Court to confirm a box new in light of a above observations,
8. Parties to bear their possess costs.