Case Name: Dimple Gupta vs Rajiv Gupta
Citation: Criminal Appeal No.1139 of 2002
Date of Judgement: 12-10-2007
Parties Involved: Dimple Gupta and Rajiv Gupta
Facts
Dimple Gupta, applied section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure through her mother Narain Dassi claiming maintenance at Rs. 500/- per month from the respondent Rajiv Gupta alleging that he was her father as she had been born out of a relationship between him and her mother. It was alleged in the application that she was living with her mother at village Nogali Tehsil Rampur, Himachal Pradesh at the time of the filing of the petition and that she had been conceived out of wedlock when her mother was a student in the 10th Class in the Government High Court School at village Nogal. It was further alleged that when the respondent got to know that Narain Dassi had conceived she had been taken by him to Chandigarh to get the fetus aborted but the Doctor advised that as the pregnancy was at an advanced stage it was not possible to undergo the procedure. It was further alleged that the respondent had then abandoned her mother whereafter she was born on 8.7.1991 at village Kalpa.
Issue
What are the rights of illegitimate children for maintenance?
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the child born out of a live-in relationship could claim maintenance from his biological father. S.B.Sinha, J. and Harjeet Singh Bedi, J. of the Supreme Court set aside the order of Himachal Pradesh High Court which had rejected the claim of Dimple Gupta (minor) who had claimed maintenance from her father Rajiv Gupta on the basis that she was born out of a relationship between her mother Narain Dassi and Rajiv Gupta when they were living together.
The Judicial Magistrate directed Rajiv Gupta to pay rupees five hundred per month to the child as maintenance. The High Court, however, reversed the trial court order but the Supreme court held that there was no reason to justify a reversal of the findings that had been recorded by the trial magistrate that they were not married and appellant, therefore, had virtually no rights which she could enforce except through an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Rationale
The court said, “We find 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 Narain Dassi and several other witnesses.”