- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35518 CRL.P No. 5682 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5682 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. MARIYANNA ALIAS MARIYANNA GOWDA S/O. EREGOWDA ALIAS ERANNA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O. KILARDAHALLI, BUKKAPATANA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 115. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.R. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SANNATAYAMMA W/O. MARIYANNA, D/O. THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 2. SRI. PAVAN KUMAR S/O. SANNATAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF CHIKKAHEDIGEHALLI, CHELURU HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU - 572 117. …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE DATED 02.08.2019 PASSED IN CRL.REV.PET.NO.73/2015 BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMAKURU. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35518 CRL.P No. 5682 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ODERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the husband challenging the maintenance awarded to the wife at the rate of Rs.2,000- 00 and Rs.1,000-00 to the minor son. 2. Facts leading to the case are as under: Respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking maintenance. The petitioner herein contested the petition and disputed the paternity of respondent no.2. The primary objection of the petitioner before the learned magistrate was that his wife has been separately residing since 1997 and therefore he has had no occasion to cohabit with his wife and therefore respondent no.2 is not a legitimate child and he is not the biological father. The petitioner placed reliance on the xerox copy of the agreement, which was not marked, as the wife seriously objected to the admissibility of the xerox copy of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35518 CRL.P No. 5682 of 2025 agreement. Insofar as the paternity of the second respondent/son is concerned, the learned magistrate held that if at all the petitioner is disputing his relationship with the second respondent, he has to file a comprehensive suit and seek a declaration in regard to the paternity of the second respondent. Having perused the records, the learned magistrate was of the view that the petitioner, despite possessing sufficient means, has neglected to maintain his wife and a minor son. Consequently, the petition was allowed, granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000-00 to the wife and Rs.1,000-00 to the son. This order is confirmed by the revisional court. These two concurrent orders are under challenge. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the records. 4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner made a faint attempt to contend that the petitioner cannot be fastened with any liability to pay maintenance to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35518 CRL.P No. 5682 of 2025 respondent No.2 on the premise that the latter is not his biological son, this Court is unable to accept such a contention at this stage. The scope of enquiry under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is inherently limited and summary in nature. It is well-settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C., this Court is not required to adjudicate disputed questions of paternity or title, which are matters to be examined in appropriate civil proceedings. 5. It is trite that under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there is a strong presumption regarding the legitimacy of a child born during the continuance of a valid marriage between its mother and any man, or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried. Such presumption is founded on considerations of public policy and sanctity of the marital relationship, and courts have repeatedly emphasised that it is one of the strongest known to law. However, the said presumption is not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35518 CRL.P No. 5682 of 2025 conclusive; it can be displaced only by adducing clear, cogent and satisfactory evidence establishing the non- access of the parties to the marriage at the relevant time, or by other reliable proof such as scientific evidence which demonstrates that the husband could not be the father of the child. The burden of rebutting this presumption squarely rests on the party who asserts that the child is illegitimate, and such burden must be discharged by proof of a high degree of probability so as to exclude any reasonable doubt. 6. It is an admitted position that the second respondent, represented by his natural guardian–mother, has already instituted a comprehensive suit for partition, wherein the petitioner has taken a specific plea denying the paternity of the second respondent. The question as to whether the second respondent is the legitimate or biological son of the petitioner, and whether the petitioner bears any legal obligation arising out of such relationship, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35518 CRL.P No. 5682 of 2025 are issues which squarely fall for determination in the said civil proceedings. 7. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that the entitlement of respondent No.2 to receive maintenance from the petitioner shall remain subject to the final outcome of the proceedings pending in the partition suit. At this juncture, there are no compelling circumstances warranting interference with the order directing payment of maintenance. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal petition is dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28 CT: BHK