3 min readNew DelhiJul 29, 2012 01:44 AM IST
First published on: Jul 29, 2012 at 01:44 AM IST
Holding that it is “imperative to presume legitimacy of a child born during continuation of a valid marriage” a sessions court in the city has allowed the appeal of a woman claiming maintenance for herself and her five-year-old daughter.
The trial court had denied the claim for interim maintenance filed by the wife of a CRPF constable for her minor daughter in a domestic violence case before the Mahila Court.
The woman had filed the complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (PWDV) Act against her husband.
She had also filed a claim for payment of interim maintenance for herself and her two minor children.
The family court had allowed payment of interim maintenance for the couple’s 13-year-old son,but had denied maintenance to the younger child since the husband’s counsel had raised an objection and demanded a paternity test for the child.
The woman refused to allow the paternity test,as a result of which the court had denied the claim of maintenance for the second child.
She then appealed against this order of the family court. The court of Additional Sessions Judge Narinder Kumar in a judgment on Saturday directed the trial court to decide on the claim for maintenance for the woman and the child.
The husband in his pleadings before the family court had stated that he suspected his wife of having relations with another man and that he had received phone calls from strangers asking about the girl’s paternity.
However,the sessions court noted that he had not raised any dispute regarding the girl’s paternity himself.
The question had been raised by the advocate representing the constable during the final arguments on the petition for interim maintenance.
Questioning the motive of the advocate for disputing the paternity of the child and demanding a DNA test even when the husband himself had not raised any such dispute,the sessions court quoted a Supreme Court order,which stated that DNA test should not be done as a matter of routine.
The court held that the law could not deny maintenance to the wife and child simply because the wife refused to submit the child for a DNA test.
Share
