- (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.02.2009, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, whereby the learned Judge has directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to respondent Nos.2 and 3, namely Sushri Urvashi and Sushri Monalisa.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and his wife, Smt. Anita, had parted their ways on 25.10.2005. The respondent No.3, Ms. Monalisa, is alleged to be born ten months thereafter. Therefore, according to him, she is not his daughter. Therefore, he is aggrieved by the fact that the learned Judge has directed him to pay a maintenance of Rs.500 per month to the respondent No.3, Ms. Monalisa.
(3.) Mr. G.S. Rathore, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that according to the petitioner, he had denied the allegation of respondent No.1 that despite their separation, the petitioner was periodically visiting her. It is due to these visits that respondent No.3 was born. Relying on the case of Smt. Modi Vs. Latoor Lal, 2004 2 WLC(Raj) 625, the learned counsel has further contended that it was for the wife to establish the fact that the respondent No.3 was legitimate child born out of the wedlock. This burden has not been discharged by the respondent No.1. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the learned Judge that the respondent No.3 happens to be a legitimate child of the petitioner is a misplaced conclusion.;