1 2025:CGHC:30569 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 737 of 2025 Trishanku Sahu S/o Late Shri Gajanand Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Sasha, P.S. And Tahsil Pamgarh, District Jajgir-Champa (C.G.) Present Address Near Jagan Talab Behind Amit Kirana Store, P.S. And Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Ku. Bhuneshwari Sahu D/o Trishanku Sahu Aged About 14 Years Through Natural Guardian Maternal Grand-Father Harichand, S/o Seturam, Presently Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village Sasha, P.S. And Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 04.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 29.03.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in MCRC No. 147/2024, whereby the learned Family Court allowed the application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent and directed the applicant that he has to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the respondent. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent had filed an application through natural guardian her maternal grand-father Harichand stating that marriage between her mother Neelu Sahu and non-applicant was solemnized in the month of December 2009 and out of their wedlock one female child/Bhuneshwari Sahu was born on 30.04.2011 and after one year her mother Smt. Neelu Sahu died on 24.07.2012. After death of mother the applicant left the respondent in the house of her maternal grandparents, therefore, since 30.04.2012 she is forcefully residing in the house of her maternal parents, that the respondent has after the death of the mother of the non-applicant performed remarriage at Vill-Sasha and he is not made any contact with the respondent and also not fulfill the liability of maintenance of the respondent. The respondent is student of Class-6th and she has need of Rs. 12000/- per month for her education and other school expenses. The maternal grandfather of the respondent is suffering from Gastrolith (Pathri) and other various disease, that the respondent is suffering from financial hardship, on the other hand the applicant is having five acres agricultural land at Vill-Sasha and he has also a house at Vill-Sasha and Pamgarh, the applicant is working as contractor and earning Rs. 50,000/- per month, therefore, the respondent is entitled to get Rs. 12,000/- in the head of her maintenance and school education. 4. The applicant has filed the reply and denied the contention of the application filed by the respondent. The learned Family Court after recording the evidence of the parties passed the impugned order, whereby the learned Family Court allowed the application of the respondents and directed to the applicant to pay the amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the respondent. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is without any appreciation of facts, and material 3 available on record only on the basis of arbitrary manner, thus, the impugned order is completely illegal. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned trial judge has failed to see that the respondent is not the daughter of the applicant, that there was no legal relationship between the applicant and Neelu Sahu, respondent is not born out of any kind of relationship between the applicant. It is submitted that the mother of the respondent had made the allegation of rape against the applicant when he was minor aged about 14 years and 10 months. It is further submitted that looking to the dispute regarding the paternity, the DNA examination was necessary before awarding the maintenance amount as the applicant has made specific averment that the respondent is not his legitimate or illegitimate daughter. Therefore, the impugned order passed by this Family Court is baseless, and is liable to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 4 9. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar