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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more