The Kerala High Court on Wednesday issued notice to movie actor Lissy on a writ petition filed by N.D. Varkey, a 73-year-old man from Kothamangalam, claiming to be her father and seeking a DNA test on himself and Lissy to establish paternity.
Justice A. Mohamed Mustaque also issued notice to the District Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is officiating as Tribunal for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens, on a petition filed by Mr. Varkey.
The petitioner pointed out that the High Court had earlier directed Ms. Lissy to pay him the maintenance arrears due from March 3, 2015.
The court directives were based on a petition filed by Ms. Lissy challenging a March 2015 order of the tribunal, asking her to pay a compensation of Rs.5,500 a month to Mr. Varkey with retrospective effect from 2011.The High Court also ordered the Tribunal to reconsider its directive asking to pay arrears from 2011.
Mr. Varkey pointed out that he had produced an agreement of marriage between him and his wife, Elizabeth, alias Eliyamma, before the Tribunal as proof, and the birth of Lissy, whose original name was Mary.
He had also expressed his willingness to undergo DNA test. However, the tribunal disposed of his application for a directive to conduct a DNA test by asking him to approach a competent forum to decide the issue of paternity, as it had no power to order a DNA test.
The fact that Lissy was born to Elizabeth during the subsistence of the marriage was not disputed, he argued, maintaining that the tribunal should have decided Lissy’s paternity under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, since she had disputed the paternity.
Mr. Varkey stated that he had also filed an appeal before the District Collector against the Tribunal order and had sought an interim directive to the actor to pay Rs.10,000 as interim maintenance during the pendency of appeal. He was bedridden for the last two years after a stroke and an accident. He, therefore, needed medicine, food and treatment, and has been residing with his brother at Aluva.
Mr. Varkey had contended that if interim maintenance was not granted immediately, he could not survive. However, no order was passed by the District Collector, though the appeal should have been disposed of within one month under section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
