1 2025:CGHC:29549 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 498 of 2017 Minor Jogeshwar Satnmai Now Aged About 07 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As 18 Years), Represented Through His Guardian Grandfather (Mothers Father) Rajkumar Satnami S/o Ramsingh Satnami, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Garra, Tahsil Chhuikhadan District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Chandu Satnami S/o Shivcharan Satnami R/o Village Garra, Police Station Gandai, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sanjeev Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel, appearing for respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “ It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and further be ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.03 11:14:02 +0530 2 pleased to set-aside the order dated 10.02.2017 passed by the learned Family Court, Link Court, Khairagarh, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 17/2011 and further applicant’s application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. may be allowed, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that in the year 2008, the respondent committed sexual intercourse with minor Pushpa Bai by giving her a false assurance of marriage. Thereafter, when minor Pushpa Bai informed the respondent about her pregnancy, he refused to accept her. Subsequently, in a village meeting, the respondent accepted the relationship and agreed to keep her, but on the next day, he refused to do so. Thereafter, minor Pushpa Bai reported the matter, and on 22.01.2009, an offence under Sections 376 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the respondent. Subsequently, on 17.04.2009, minor Pushpa Bai gave birth to a minor child, namely Jageshwar, and when the respondent was informed, he refused to maintain the child. Thereafter, the grandfather (mother’s father) filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as Pushpa Bai was also a minor at that time. 4. The respondent filed his reply and denied the averments made by the applicant. He specifically pleaded that he had no relationship with minor Pushpa Bai. He further submitted that by order dated 15.02.2014 in Criminal Case No. 24/2008, he was acquitted by the learned Juvenile Board. 5. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence available on 3 record, dismissed the application. It is submitted that earlier, the mother of the applicant, namely Pushpa Bai, was also represented before the trial Court, but after attaining majority, she performed marriage and left the applicant with his grandfather. At present, the applicant is living with his grandfather. Therefore, in the present case, the mother has not been impleaded as the natural guardian of the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law as well as on the facts on record. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. He submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that A.W. 1, Amar Bai, mother of Pushpa Bai, specifically stated that the respondent is the father of minor Jageshwar and after his birth, the respondent has not taken care of him. Further, the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are summary in nature, yet the learned Family Court disbelieved the witnesses of the applicant. He also submits that the learned Family Court committed an illegality by relying solely on the oral statements of the respondent and his witnesses. The learned Family Court, in paragraph 12 of the impugned order, itself admitted that the respondent has not filed any document to prove that in the year 2008, he had already gone to Jamnagar for earning his livelihood. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that earlier, by order dated 13.05.2011 in Misc. Cr. Case No. 17/2011, maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month was granted against the respondent (ex-parte order). Thereafter, the respondent filed an application under Section 4 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and by order dated 08.12.2015, the ex-parte order was set aside. 7. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court observed that; “17. The applicant’s side claimed that during the village meeting, the respondent accepted that the pregnancy of the applicant’s mother was due to him. However, there was no written record of this meeting nor any document showing that the respondent acknowledged the pregnancy. Further, no witness to the meeting was produced to testify that the respondent accepted the pregnancy in their presence. The applicant’s guardian and his wife, Amar Bai, admitted that in 2008 the respondent went outside the village for employment. Moreover, the main witness to the alleged rape and sexual intercourse, i.e., the applicant’s mother herself, did not testify. According to the applicant’s version, the incident of rape or sexual intercourse with the applicant’s mother took place sometime between Ashadh 2008 and before Diwali 2008, which resulted in the pregnancy. However, the specific act of sexual intercourse was not proven through the testimony of the applicant’s mother, 5 nor was any medical evidence presented. Additionally, neither the guardian nor the mother produced any witness who saw the respondent in a suspicious situation with the applicant’s mother. No witness was produced to confirm that the respondent accepted the pregnancy during the meeting. The record also showed that the respondent went out for work in 2008 and returned only before Diwali that year. Hence, the applicant’s claim did not appear credible. In light of this evidence, it did not appear that the respondent established physical relations with the applicant’s mother by luring her with a promise of marriage, nor did it appear that the pregnancy was caused by the respondent. Therefore, it was also not established that the applicant was the son of the respondent. 18. Since it was not proven that the respondent committed rape or had physical relations with the applicant’s mother during Ashadh 2008 to before Diwali 2008, it could not be proven that the minor applicant was the son of the respondent. In this situation, where paternity was not established, the applicant could not claim maintenance from the respondent. The respondent also relied on the judgment Chaturbhuj vs Amar, 2010 (1) Manisha 48 (Chhattisgarh), where it was held that the testimony of the mother alone was not sufficient to prove paternity if she was not the lawful wife. The revision petition in that case was dismissed, and the 6 respondent benefitted from this precedent. 19. Since it was not proven that the applicant was the son of the respondent, he was not entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent. Therefore, the applicant’s application was dismissed on merits. Hence, the order passed by the learned Family Court is just and proper. 10. 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek