1 2025:CGHC:34633 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 331 of 2021 Sonsai Rajwade, S/o Shri Samay Lal, Aged About 40 Years R/o.- Village - Bharuhamuda, Police Station - Surajpur, Tehsil - Ramanujganj, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Aryan Kumar Rajwade, S/o Shri Sonsai Rajwade, Aged About 1 Years 6 Months, (Minor) Represented By Natural Guardian - Mother, Smt. Dashmet W/o Shri Sonsai Rajwade, Aged About - 25 Years, R/o. - Mahora, Post And Police Station - Patna, Tehsil - Baikunthpur, District - Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 04.03.2021 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.308/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the 2 respondent and directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that Dashmat's marriage to the applicant took place four years ago. The applicant executed an agreement on January 13, 2014, as proof. After the marriage, the applicant kept Dashmat as his wife at Lal Singh God’s place. During their marital life, Dashmat conceived the respondent, and it was during this time that she discovered the applicant's relationship with another woman. When Dashmat objected, the applicant started abusing her under the influence of alcohol and asked her to leave the house. Dashmat filed a complaint at the Women’s Counseling Center, where both parties were counseled. Despite this, the applicant continued to threaten Dashmat, even chasing her with an axe to harm her. Fearing for her life, Dashmat left the house and came to Surajpur. 3. The applicant has not provided any maintenance for the respondent since his birth. The applicant works as a compounder at the Ayurvedic Hospital in Krishnapur, earning a monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- and also owns 15 acres of agricultural land, generating an annual income of Rs.10 lakhs. Therefore, the applicant, Aryan, has requested that the applicant, as Aryan's father, be directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance for his upkeep. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed to pay 3 Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. Hence, the revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court’s order is vitiated by material irregularity and non-application of mind, as it fails to consider the crucial fact that the respondent is not the biological son of the applicant, and the mother of the respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the applicant. Furthermore, the Family Court's refusal to allow the DNA application (Annexure P-4) undermines the determination of the paternity issue, which is central to the claim under Section 125 CrPC. He further submits that the learned Family Court was well aware that the applicant was not at fault; on the contrary, the respondent was barred under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also submits that the learned Family Court erred significantly in both fact and law by overlooking the applicant’s plight, as the respondent's claim for maintenance should be directed against his biological father, hence, the application under Section 125 of the CrPC is not maintainable against the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the respondent and directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing the Ex.P-1(c), from which it evident that the Dashmet, mother of the respondent and the applicant had been living together as husband and wife since before January 13, 2014, whereas, the applicant has not shown that he and Dashmet did not have mutual access at any time when they could have conceived, nor has he proven that Dashmet had any relationship with another person during that time. Additionally, the applicant has not made it clear that Dashmet was pregnant before or after separating from him. Under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, the birth of a child during the continuance of a valid marriage is conclusive proof of legitimacy. Moreover, the applicant has stated in his affidavit that he has been working as a laborer at a doctor's place for the past two years, earning Rs.150 per day, but he has not presented any evidence to support this claim. Given the current daily wage rate of Rs.200-300, it can be presumed that the non-applicant's income is at least Rs.9,000 per month, after considering the parties' social and economic status, the Family Court concluded that respondent is entitled to maintenance as aforementioned 5 8. Considering the submissions 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 revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil