DIMPLE GUPTA (MINOR) versus RAJIV GUPTA

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 213 · Decided: 12-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

+ 
j 
DIMPLE GUPTA (MINOR) 
A 
v. 
' 
RATNGUPTA 
OCTOBER 12, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
B 
-l 
~ 
Code a/Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
~ 
s. 125-Minor claiming maintenance through her mother from c 
respondent on the ground that she was his daughter as she was born 
out of his relation with her mother-Trial Court allowed maintenance 
holding that she was illegitimate daughter of respondent-High Court 
reversed the order of trial Court-Interference under Art. 136-Held: 
Interference called for on facts of the case-High Court erred in b 
reversing the findings recorded by trial Court on the basis of statement 
>--
a/mother of applicant and several other witnesses-Constitution of 
India, 1950-Art.136. 
,,) 
The appellant filed an application under s.125 Cr.P .C. through 
her mother PW-1 claiming maintenance of Rs.500 p.m. from the R 
respondent alleging that he was her father as she had been born out 
of a relationship between him and her mother. The trial Court allowed 
the application holding that appellant was the illegitimate child of 
respondent. Respondent filed revision before High Court which was 
allowed. Hence the present appeal. 
F 
-4 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
~ 
HELD: 1. PWl and respondent were not married. The appellant 
therefore has virtually no rights which she can enforce during her 
minority except through an application under s.125 Cr.P.C. The G 
entertainment of a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of 
+ 
India is thus justified on the facts of the case. There is no reason to 
justify a reversal of the findings that had been recorded by the trial 
Magistrate as the application was supported by the statement of PW-
213 
H 
214 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
A 1 and several other witnesses. PW3 specifically deposed that PW-1 
and respondent had stayed in her house in village Kalpa several years 
earlier. The High Court has held that statement of PW3 could not 
be relied upon as it appeared that she had been in Sri Lanka at the 
relevant time and could not have therefore been host to PW-1 and 
B respondent. In such matters it is impossible to lay down with 
precision the chain of events more particularly when illiterate 
villagers with no sense of time are involved. There is no reason 
therefore to disbelieve the statement of PW3. Likewise, PW4 
Pradhan of village has proved the extracts of the birth register which 
C shows respondent's name as father of appellant whereas PWS a 
teacher has proved the admission form of appellant where the 
column pertaining to the father's name has been left blank as would 
perhaps be expected from an unwed mother to keep silent on the 
subject to avoid embarrassment to all concerned particularly at the 
D time when the child was being admitted to school. Much has been 
made of the fact that the PW2 who had not supported the claim of 
the appellant although she had been cited as her witness. When PW2 
had first been examined in Court on 25.10.1994 she had fully 
supported the case of the applicant but to recall for evidence on 
29.2.1996 she did a volte face and disowned ber earlier statements. 
E The trial Magistrate was therefore justified in observing that tb,is 
witness had been won over in the interregnum. 
[Para 6] [217-C-H; 218-A-B] 
F relied 
Nand Lal Misra v. Kanhaiya Lal .Misra, AIR (1960) SC 882, 
on. 
-t 
\_ 
Dorje Wangial v. Kaaram Singh, (1997) 2 Sim.L.C. 277, referred 
-.. 
~ 
r 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
G 1139 of2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2001 of the High Court 
of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Crl. Revision No. 62 of 2001. 
Ravi Bakshi and Y ash Pal Dhingra for the Appellant. 
H 
O.P. Shanna, Anil Nag, Rajeev Kumar Bansal, Akshay K. Ghai and 
+ 
i 
DIMPLEGUPTA(MINOR)v. RAJIVGUPTA 
215 
[HARJIT SINGHBEDI,J.] 
K.R. Gupta for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. I. This appeal by special leave arises 
out of the following facts. 
2. The appellant herein, Dimple Gupta, filed an application under 
section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure through her mother Narain 
Dassi claiming maintenance at Rs. 500/- per month from the respondent 
Raj iv Gupta alleging that he was her father as she had been bom out of 
A 
B 
a relationship between him and her mother. It was alleged in the 
application that she was living with her mother at village Nogali Tehsil C 
Rampur, Himachal Pradesh at the time of the filing of the petit

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.