ALLEGED DAUGHTER OF SUDHANSHU PANDEY, IAS SEEKS MAINTENANCE
STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: In a significant development, Justice Sanjay Dhar of High Court of J&K and Ladakh (Srinagar Wing) in a Criminal Revision filed by Raaisha (minor) through her mother Sumaira claiming to be a daughter of Syed Sudhanshu Pandey (Sudhanshu Pandey IAS) presently Union Secretary, Department of Food & Public Distribution, Government of India has upheld the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (2nd Additional Munsiff), Srinagar, deferring the proceedings filed by the alleged daughter of Syed Sudhanshu Pandey for seeking maintenance till the outcome of the Civil Suit in which the question of paternity of the minor Raaisha is issue.
The minor Raaisha, through her mother, had filed a petition under Section 488 J&K CrPC against Sudhanshu Pandey claiming maintenance from him. In the petition, it has been alleged that in the year 2010, when Sudhanshu Pandey was holding the position of Finance Secretary in the Government of J&K, he developed relationship with mother of the petitioner. It is further alleged that in the month of May 2010, Sudhanshu Pandey converted to Islam, where after he entered into wedlock with mother of the petitioner on May 8, 2010 and out of the wedlock the petitioner Raaisha was born on April 12, 2011. It is further alleged that in the month of October 2012, Sudhanshu Pandey was deputed to Central Government and posted at New Delhi. The petitioner has further alleged that Sudhanshu Pandey shifted to New Delhi, leaving her and mother in lurch. It is further alleged that on April 1, 2013 the petitioner (Raaisha) alongwith her mother visited the native place of Sudhanshu Pandey in Lucknow where they came to know that he was already a married man, having wife and two children and it was also found that Sudhanshu Pandey was practising Hindu faith, as a result whereof, the marriage between the petitioner’s mother and Sudhanshu Pandey got automatically dissolved. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner Sumaira filed a suit for declaration and injunction against Sudhanshu Pandey which is pending disposal before the Court of Ist Additional Munsiff, Srinagar wherein the declaration is sought that the petitioner Raaisha is daughter of Sudhanshu Pandey.
The alleged minor daughter has further averred that though Sudhanshu Pandey did remit some maintenance amount in the bank account of the petitioner, yet the same is very meager and on these grounds minor Raaisha sought monthly maintenance of Rs 30,000 (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) from Sudhanshu Pandey.
On the other hand, Sudhanshu Pandey while contesting the 488 petition (Maintenance Proceedings) filed his reply and refuted all the allegations made in the petition and denied having entered into any wedlock with mother of the petitioner.
He also denied his relationship with minor Raaisha. He further submitted that the allegations made in the petition are just a figment of imagination and a device to scandalize his reputation and image. He further claimed that the mother of the minor Raaisha is only trying to blackmail him and to tarnish his clean image as a distinguished public servant. He further averred that in the Civil Suit, mother of the petitioner has admitted that she had entered into wedlock with another person on 1st August, 2010 which ended in divorce in October 2010. He further averred that the birth certificate of the minor depicts her father’s name as the person with whom the petitioner’s mother had married. Sudhanshu Pandey further claimed that he is a happily married person with two grown up children and there is no way that he could have entered into a wedlock with the minor’s mother. He further claimed that the petitioner’s mother has been blackmailing him and trying to extort money from him by maligning his reputation.
During the pendency of the proceedings under Section 488 J&K CrPC, Sudhanshu Pandey made an application before the Trial Magistrate at Srinagar for deferment of proceedings till the disposal of Civil Suit filed by mother of the petitioner (Paternity Suit). The 2nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar after hearing both the sides observed that pendency of two concurrent proceedings in which the issue as to the fact whether the petitioner’s mother is legally wedded wife of Sudhanshu Pandey, is required to be determined and in the absence of any, prima facie, documentary proof in the Civil Suit as regards the marriage between petitioners’ mother and Sudhanshu Pandey, it is appropriate to defer the decision of the proceedings till the outcome of the Civil Suit.
Against the said order of deferment of proceedings, the minor Raaisha filed a Criminal Revision before the Srinagar Wing of the High Court of J&K and Ladakh and after hearing both the sides, Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that in the instant case, there is a serious dispute as regards the paternity of the petitioner and documents on record prima facie suggest that the mother of the petitioner had entered into a wedlock with one Idrees Bashir and the birth of the petitioner has taken place within two hundred and eighty days of dissolution of marriage between the petitioner’s mother and Idrees Bashir. The court further held that there are two birth certificates on record, in one, name of father of the petitioner is shown as Idrees Bashir Jabari and in the other one, which has been issued after more than three years of her birth, the name of the father of the petitioner is shown as Syed Sudhanshu Pandey. The court further held that the first birth certificate being based upon contemporaneous record, prima facie, would get precedence over the second one, which has been issued after a considerable delay of more than three years. In the face of this overwhelming record, unless the petitioner, by leading cogent and convincing evidence and placing on record unimpeachable material in the proceedings going on before the Civil Court, it may not be possible for the Magistrate to pass an order of maintenance in her favour and therefore the Learned Magistrate has rightly deferred further consideration till the decision of the issue in the Civil Court.
With these observations and directions, Justice Sanjay Dhar did not interfere with the order passed by the Trial Magistrate and further held that the revision petition is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the same.