High Court of KeralaWP(C)/9845/2015disposed of

Safernas K. v. Corporation Of Calicut

2015-09-22Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/31ST BHADRA, 1937H WP(C).No. 9845 of 2015 (E) --------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------ SAFERNAS K., S/O. MELAPILATHOTTATHIL JAMAL & KANDIYIL NOORUNNISA, KANDIYIL HOUSE, NEAR KARUNARAM AUP SCHOOL, NANMINDA P.O., BALUSSERY KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.

SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENTS:

-----------------------

1. CORPORATION OF CALICUT, CALICT, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.

2. MELAPILATHOTTATHIL JAMAL, S/O NADUVILEVEETTIL KUNHUTTY, CHEEKILODEP.O., KAKKOOR, KOZHIKODE.

R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ R2 BY ADV. SMT.M.SHAJNA R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.KANNAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 9845 of 2015 (E) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 :

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.11.1994 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE IN M.C. NO.461/1992 EXHIBIT P2 :

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.7.2007 PASSED UB CMP NO. 753/2004 IN MC 461/1992 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE EXHIBIT P3 :

TRUE COPY OF THE ,AFFIDAVIT DATED 29.9.2012 SUBMITTED BY KANDYIL NOORUNNISA BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.1 EXHIBIT P4 :

TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 25.6.2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 EXHIBITP5 :

TRUE COPY OF THE S.S.L.C. CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE.

V. CHITAMBARESH, J -------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 9845 OF 2015 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2015

JUDGMENT

Then the second respondent is the father of the petitioner has been conclusively found in Ext.P1 order on a petition filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said order has been affirmed in Crl.R.P. No. 348/1995 by this court and enhancement of maintenance granted later by Ext.P2 order. The power of the court to incidentally decide the question of paternity in the proceedings for maintenance has been recognised in Alexander C.C. Vs. Jacob Antony Palakkathadathi @ Amith and another [2012 (2) KHC 847] and Devadas Vs. Gopalakrishnan [2014(4) KLT 201]. 2.

It is ofcourse true that the proceedings of the court granting maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure is summary in nature and not binding on the civil court. It would mean that the second respondent is free to move the civil court for appropriate reliefs notwithstanding the finding in Exts.P1 and P2 orders. That is the ratio of the decisions in

WP(C) No. 9845/2015 S. Sethurathinam Pillai Vs. Barbara alias Dolly Sethurathinam [1971(3) SCC 923] and Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and another [1999(7) SCC 675].

The first respondent Corporation cannot decline a birth certificate to the petitioner showing the second respondent as the father of the petitioner. This is so in the wake of Exts.P1 and P2 orders and the absence of any verdict by the civil court. I quash Ext.P4 order of the first respondent declining the request of the petitioner for a birth certificate indicating the second respondent as the father of the petitioner.

I direct the first respondent to issue the birth certificate to the petitioner showing the name of the second respondent as his father. The same shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE ncd