Skip to main content

Family court orders maintenance for child born of love affair

In a rare judgement, a family court ordered a man to pay maintenance to his child born out of his love affair before his marriage to another woman.

Family court judge M J Mehta ordered Rajkumar Adidravid on Tuesday to pay Rs 2,700 per month as maintenance to the boy and also pay arrears of Rs 1.14 lakh at 2,700 per month from the date of filing of case in June 2010.

The court gave the judgement based on a DNA test report which proved that Adidravid fathered the child.

Saying that bringing up the child is the father's responsibility, the court directed Indian Railways, where the man works, to deduct compensation amount from the his salary and give it to the child's mother.

The child's mother had approached the family court demanding that Adidravid should pay maintenance of Rs 15,000 per month to bring up the child and also demanded arrears of Rs 10 lakh.

As per case details, the child's mother had entered into a relationship with the Adidravid in 2004 after he promised her marriage.

However, Adidravid broke his promise, went to his native village in Tamil Nadu and married another girl, while his earlier partner gave a birth to a boy.

After she learnt about his marriage, she approached the police and filed a complaint of rape against him.

In 2007, a city court convicted Adidravid to seven years of imprisonment, but the high court acquitted him in the case of rape, ruling that the relationship was "consensual".

The victim's advocate Samshad Pathan said that they had presented the DNA test report and other medical test reports before the family court to prove that Adidravid was the biological father of the child.

In his defence, Adidravid had said that DNA test is not a conclusive evidence and that he could not afford to pay maintenance, since he is the father of two children.

Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-12-25/ahmedabad/45560642_1_family-court-dna-test-report-court-judge

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more