A.P. Bhangale, J.@mdashHeard Mrs. Anjali Joshi, Adv. for the applicant and Mr. Dhiraj Bhoyar, Adv. for Respondent No. 1.
2. By this application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed for to quash and set aside the order dt.8.2.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Revision No. 51 of 2010.
3. It appears that Misc. Criminal Application No. 80 of 2008, u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the Respondents was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Seloo on 26.3.2010. The Respondents had challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the said order in Criminal Revision Application No. 51 of 2010 in Sessions Court, Wardha. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order allowed the application for maintenance for minor applicant Sachin Sunil Katole directing the applicant herein to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/-p.m. towards maintenance of Sachin. However, the learned Sessions Court dismissed the application as far as grant of maintenance to Respondent No. 1 herein for herself is concerned.
4. It appears that earlier the applicant herein was prosecuted for the alleged offence of rape in Sessions Trial No. 117 of 2000, decided on 9th September, 2002. The Sessions Trial resulted in acquittal of the applicant on the ground that the prosecutrix was a consenting party for sexual intercourse by the applicant/accused on the promise of marriage. The learned Sessions Judge held that such a consensual intercourse cannot be called as misconception in absence of any evidence to show that the accused was not intending to marry her. Under such circumstances, the applicant was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sessions 417 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The learned Sessions Judge who disposed of Criminal Revision Application No. 51 of 2010 by well reasoned reason and sound judgment considered the fact that Respondent No. 2 Sachin is the illegitimate son of the present applicant Sunil and since the applicant herein is a man of sufficient means, he was bound to maintain his illegitimate son. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the applicant do not admit that Sachin (Respondent No. 2) is his son begotten out of blood relationship. In other words, the applicant is interested to avoid his liability to maintain Respondent No. 2 on the ground that there is No. relationship at all between the applicant and Respondent No. 2. This contention will have to be substantiated by the applicant by adopting appropriate remedy to prove the circumstances, if any, favourable to him by filing a suit in the competent Civil Court or by resorting to the remedy available for cancellation of maintenance granted u/s 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court cannot use inherent powers to set aside the order granting maintenance which was passed after considering the facts and circumstances, by a reasoned and sound judgment. In the circumstances, No. manifest injustice or any miscarriage of justice appears to have occurred.
6. The learned Advocate for the applicant also disputed the quantum of maintenance payable to Respondent No. 2 from the date of application. Considering the amount of maintenance granted per month in the sum of Rs. 1,500/-for a minor illegitimate child, I think that there is No. need to interfere with the quantum granted, particularly, considering the basic needs of the child like food, clothing, shelter and education etc. I have already observed that if at all the applicant wants to prove any change in circumstances 5 regarding his income or otherwise, he is at liberty to apply for alteration of allowance of maintenance u/s 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
With these observations, there being No. reason to interfere with the impugned order, the application is dismissed.
