2025:UHC:6556 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C482/1403/2017 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. No representation for respondent. 3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the impugned order dated 11.08.2017, passed by the learned Additional Family Judge, Family Court, Roorkee, in Case No. 133 of 2016, Smt. Arzoo & Another vs. Mohd. Jafar, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the applicant’s applications, paper no. 23A seeking DNA test of respondent no.2, and paper no. 24A seeking summoning of educational and professional documents of respondent no.1 and the pay slip of respondent no.2, have been rejected. 4. Brief facts of the case, as per the record, are that the marriage between the applicant and respondent no.1 was solemnized on 06.04.2014 in accordance with Muslim rites and rituals. Out of the said wedlock, a girl child, respondent no.2, was born. Due to matrimonial discord, respondent no.1 started residing separately along with the minor child. Subsequently, respondents filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Roorkee. The applicant filed objections to the interim maintenance application and also filed application paper no. 23A for conducting DNA test of respondent no.2, and application paper no. 24A for summoning the educational and professional qualification documents of 2025:UHC:6556 respondent no.1 and salary slip of respondent no.2. Both applications were dismissed by the learned Family Court vide impugned order dated 11.08.2017. Hence, the present application. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since respondent no.2 (minor daughter) was born only six months and eight days after the marriage, a DNA test is necessary to determine whether the applicant is her biological father. Without such determination, liability for her maintenance cannot be fastened upon the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that respondent no.1 is a highly educated woman, possessing a professional diploma and employed at City Dental Clinic, Roorkee. Therefore, her educational and professional records are relevant to determine her entitlement to maintenance. Without production of such documents, interim maintenance ought not to be granted. It is also argued that the impugned order is cursory, non- speaking, and unreasoned and therefore liable to be quashed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record. 8. A perusal of the impugned order dated 11.08.2017 would reveal that the learned Family Court took note of the fact that respondent no.2 was born in 2014, and that the applicant continued to reside with respondent no.1 and their minor daughter in 2015. The Court observed that the application for conducting a DNA test was filed only after the initiation of proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which prima facie appeared to be a tactic to delay the payment of interim maintenance. Similarly, the application seeking 2025:UHC:6556 production of documents from respondent no.1 was viewed as an attempt to prolong the proceedings. In light of these considerations, the Family Court, by way of a well-reasoned and detailed order, rightly rejected both applications. It is a settled proposition of law that a legally wedded wife and children are entitled to maintenance, and the husband is under a legal obligation to maintain her. 9. It is also trite law that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly, only to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. Such powers are not to be invoked for re- evaluation of evidence or interference with factual findings recorded by the subordinate court. 10. In the present case, the grounds urged by the applicant involve disputed questions of fact, which require appreciation of evidence and are triable during the course of the proceedings. These cannot be adjudicated in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised. 12. Accordingly, the C-482 application is dismissed. 13. No order as to costs. [ (Alok Mahra, J.) 24.07.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:6556