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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more