- (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2009, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, whereby while denying the maintenance to respondent No.1, Smt. Indu Bala, inter alia on the ground that she is living in adultery, the learned Judge has granted a maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2, Tanmay Purohit.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that even during the subsistency of the marriage, while he and his wife lived together, his wife had developed intimate relationship with one Mahesh @ Deepak Chawla, who was a tenant in the building where the couple was residing. It is further his contention that although Tanmay Purohit, respondent No.2, was born during the subsistency of the marriage, but he claimed that the child is not his.
(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Marinmay Battmewar, the learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that since the child was born during the subsistency of the marriage, the presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act with regard to the legitimacy of the child should be drawn in favour of the respondent No.2. The respondent No.1 has nowhere denied the allegation of the petitioner with regard to her adultery behaviour, but has pleaded that in fact the child happens to be a legitimate one born out of the wedlock.;