Jodhpur, May 14 -- Emphasising that it is the moral, legal, and social responsibility of an illegitimate father to bear the expenses of his child's maintenance, education, clothing, and food, a family court on Tuesday ordered a man to provide monthly financial support to his 12-and-a-half-year-old son until he is 18-years-old. While disposing of a petition filed in 2016 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure through the child's mother, the Family Court No. 2 directed the respondent, Naresh Kumar Sharma alias Nishant Sharma, to pay Rs.25,000 per month as maintenance from July 1, 2016 to April 2025. The court said that from April the monthly amount will be increased to Rs.35,000 until the child attains majority. The arrears of maintenance will be cleared in three instalments, with the next instalment due by the 10th of the following month. Any amount received in another maintenance case will be adjusted against this sum, the court stated. The case was filed by a Jodhpur-based woman, now 40, who alleged that the respondent - known to her family as her maternal uncle-in-law - exploited her under the pretence of helping her secure employment. She stated that she was subjected to repeated sexual assault in both Jodhpur and Udaipur, resulting in two forced abortions. In 2012, when she again became pregnant, doctors advised against termination due to health risks, and she gave birth at a private hospital in Udaipur. She claimed to have no independent source of income and was unable to meet the child's educational and daily needs, while the respondent allegedly had sufficient financial means. On this basis, she sought monthly maintenance aligned with his income. In reply, the respondent denied all allegations, claiming he was falsely implicated for financial extortion. He accused the petitioner of multiple illicit relationships and alleged that she had inserted his name in official records to blackmail him. He also cited previous threats of false criminal cases made by the petitioner if he refused to provide money. Presiding judge Varun Talwar, while ruling in favour of the petitioner, on Tuesday said: "The court is of the opinion that the respondent took advantage of a trusted relationship and engaged in immoral conduct, thereby tainting a social bond. A clear message must be sent that such actions will not allow anyone to escape liability." The court observed: "Since the petitioner's evidence indicates strong probability, it is reasonably established that the respondent is the illegitimate father of the child. While the petitioner and the respondent are not legally married, the father still holds a moral, legal, and social responsibility to maintain an illegitimate child, as laid out under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."...