1 2025:CGHC:31314 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 475 of 2020 Babula Parida S/o Hari Parida Aged About 48 Years R/o Behind Kali Mandir Hatkachora Police Station Bodhghat Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Sujata Parida W/o Babula Parida Aged About 46 Years R/o Indira Nagar Similiguda District Koraput (Odisha), District : Koraput, Orissa ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel for the non- applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 order dated 14.02.2020 (Annexure R-1), passed by Judge Family Court Bastar Place Jagdalpur (C.G.), in M.J.C. No. 132/2019, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the present revision arises out of the order dated 14.02.2020 passed by the learned Family Court in a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby maintenance of ₹3,000/- per month was granted to the non-applicant. The non-applicant had filed the application claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the applicant, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty and was deserted by him without any maintenance or support. In response, the applicant denied the marital relationship, asserting that the non- applicant lived with him only briefly as a friend, and further denied paternity of the child, offering to undergo a DNA test at his own expense. He also contended that the non-applicant is financially capable of earning, has a major son, and that he himself is an agriculturist and part-time driver with limited income and dependent family. Despite these objections, the Family Court, after considering the evidence on record, found merit in the non-applicant’s claim and awarded maintenance, leading to the filing of the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 14.02.2020 (Annexure R-1) is bad in law, perverse, and liable to be set aside, as it is not a well-reasoned or speaking order. The Family Court erroneously held the non- applicant to be the legally wedded wife of the applicant solely on the basis of uncorroborated oral evidence, despite her failure to 3 produce any documentary proof of marriage or any record showing the applicant as her husband. Furthermore, the applicant consistently denied paternity of the non-applicant’s son and offered to undergo a DNA test at his own expense, which the non-applicant declined, neither producing the child in court nor offering any evidence to establish paternity. The Family Court also failed to consider that the non-applicant’s application was filed after an unreasonable delay of 25–26 years, rendering it barred by limitation. It further overlooked the fact that the non-applicant is residing with her major son, who is capable of earning, and that the applicant himself is a low-income agriculturist and driver with dependents. Without proper assessment of the applicant’s income, awarding ₹3,000/- per month as maintenance is excessive and unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bastar Place Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order dated 14.02.2020 by awarding ₹3,000/- as monthly maintenance to the non-applicant. Upon considering the evidence placed on record, the Court found sufficient grounds to 4 believe that the non-applicant was in a domestic relationship with the applicant and had been subjected to neglect and abandonment. The applicant’s bare denial of the marital relationship and paternity, without producing any conclusive evidence or pursuing the DNA test through legal process, could not override the consistent and credible testimony of the non-applicant. Furthermore, the Court rightly disregarded the applicant’s vague plea of financial hardship, as he failed to substantiate his alleged inability to provide maintenance. Given that the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent destitution and ensure basic sustenance of a dependent woman, the Family Court’s order is just, proper, and in accordance with settled legal principles. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan