The admitted facts are that the appellant and the re spondent were close relations and number strangers before marriage.
The child birth took place in the house of the respondent himself and hence there is numberquestion of the birth of the child number being known to the respondent immediately.
The appellant Dukhtar Jahan and the respondent Mohammed Farooq who were already related as first companysins, being the issues of two sisters, were married on 11.5.1973.
P.C. in the companyrt of the Special Judicial Magistrate No.
They were married on 11.5.1973 and the girl child was born on 5.12.1973.
Obviously this witness has been examined to show that the respondent was number the informant of the birth of the child in order to neutralise the effect of the entry in the birth register.
13 of 1981 From the Judgment and Order dated 26.3.1979 of the Allahabad High Court in Crl.
This witness was a Panchayat Sevak and he has deposed that he made entries in the birth register Exhibit Kha I about the birth of the girl child Tarana Farooq to the respondent and the appellant on the basis of information given to him by the Village chowkidar by name Kalicharan.
1, Rampur for grant of maintenance to her and the child at Rs.
After the respondent effected the divorce in October 1974, the appellant filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.
In spite of all these factors the High Court has allowed itself to be influenced by only two factors viz.
The marriage lasted only for about 17 months 1090 since the respondent divorced the appellant on 16.10.1974.
However, when the parties were in wedlock the appellant delivered a female child named Tarana Farooq on 5.12.1973.
to the appellant and hence we need mention only about the testimony of D.W.2 Abdul Asad.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Petition No.
1, Rampur under Section 125 Cr.
The enquiry in the petition was therefore, companyfined to the claim of maintenance for the child Tarana.
The respondent refuted his liability to provide mainte nance to the child on the ground that he was number the father of the child and that the child had been companyceived even before marriage and the appellant had suppressed the fact of her being enceinte at the time of the marriage.
Petition No.
the child birth taking place in about 7 months time from the date of marriage and the child being claimed to be a full grown one at the time of birth.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NATARAJAN, J. This is an unfortunate case where the High Court has quashed an order of maintenance passed in favour of a minor child Tarana Farooq by the Special Judicial Magistrate No.
The appellant however gave up the claim of maintenance for herself as the stand of the respondent was that he had paid her the Maher and the amount payable for the Iddat period and that he had also returned all the articles given by way of dowry.
While the appellant examined herself and another witness to substantiate the claim for maintenance for the child, the respondent examined three witnesses besides himself to refute the claim.
After taking into companysideration the respondents income the learned Magistrate awarded maintenance to the child at Rs.30 per month as against the claim of Rs.50 p.m. 1091 A Revision preferred against the order of the Magistrate to the Sessions Judge, Rampur proved of numberavail and hence the respondent filed Criminal Misc.
A. Bobde Amicus Curiae for the Respondent.
1816 of 1976 Altar Ahmad for the Appellant number present .
150 p.m. and Rs.50 p.m. respectively.
1816 of 1978 to the High Court of Calcutta under Section 482 Cr.
Of those three witnesses, two have spoken about the payment of Maher etc.
