1 2025:CGHC:40534 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 993 of 2025 Ravishankar Markam S/o Shri Ganesh Markam Aged About 27 Years (Presently 29 Years) By Caste - Gond, R/o Village Dabgaon, Thana And Tahsil- Nagri, Distt- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Minor Lajar Markam D/o (Presently 05 Years) Aged About 3 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Likeshwari Yadav W/o Unknown Aged About 25 Years (Presently 27 Years) R/o Village Musurputta Chowki Dudhawa. Distt- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) (The Name Of Father Of Minor And Husband Of Likeshwari Wrongly Mentioned As Ravishankar Markam It The Order) ----Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. By way of this revision petition, the applicant prayed for following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, prayed that the revision petition may kindly be allowed and the order impugned dated 14.07.2025 passed in Misc. Cr. Case no. 25/2023 passed by the Judge Family Court Kanker may kindly be setaside by dismissing KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 the application of respondent filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Likeshwari Yadav and minor Non-applicant had filed the application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for claiming a maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- with the averment that the marriage of the applicant was taken place with the mother of non-applicant-Smt. Likeshwari Yadav as per customs prevailing in the community and out of wedlock, the non-applicant was born. It is further alleged that the applicant has ousted the non-applicant's mother after consuming the liquor and denied to kept them therefore the non-applicant's mother is residing at her mayeka(maternal home), she did not have any source of income to maintain herself, therefore, filed the application u/s 125 of CrPC for maintenance. 3. After service of the notice, the applicant appeared before the Family Court, filed his written statement by denying the averment made in the application and stated that the mother of the non-applicant started blackmailing and demand of amount but when she did not succeed in her aim lodged the false report of rape against the applicant and after due process of trial applicant has been acquitted from the charges. He further submits that in the reply that the marriage of the non-applicant's mother was not taken place with the applicant and there is no relation between them. The non-applicant is not a daughter of the applicant therefore prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Family 3 Court framed as many as 5 issues in the matter, recorded the evidence of parties and came to the conclusion that the marriage is not proved and Likeshwari is not a wife of the applicant but the non- applicant is the illegitimate child therefore the applicant is responsible to maintain her and on relying the statement of AW-1 Likeshwari and AW-2 Smt. Tejwantan passed the order impugned by awarding a maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the non- applicant and rejected the application of the non-applicant’s mother. Hence this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court, erred in passing the order of maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month in favor of the non-applicant minor without proving the legitimacy of the child and without consider the fact that the mother of the minor has lodged the report of rape against the applicant, in the said case applicant has been acquitted from all the charges. The mother of the non-applicant had filed the application for DNA test of the child, that application is registered as I.A. no. 01/2025 and the applicant has supported the application and showing his readiness and willingness to give the sample but the learned Family Court instead of deciding the application kept the same pending and all of sudden at the time of passing the order rejected the application mentioning that the DNA report is not necessary in the case hence the finding recorded in para 12 is bad in the eyes of law. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the evidence and one side recorded the finding that the mother of the non-applicant is not the wife of the applicant but the non-applicant is the son of the 4 applicant, said finding is contrary to the evidence available on record. Mere mentioning the name of the applicant in birth register and hospital documents is not sufficient to decide the paternity of the child. The applicant has clearly submitted in the reply that there is some dispute with the mother of the non-applicant therefore a false report has been lodged regarding rape, in the said case the allegation has not been proved. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is liable to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Family Court framed five issues for determination. After evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, particularly the testimony of AW-1 Likeshwari and AW-2 Smt. Tejwantan, the Court reached the following conclusions that the alleged marriage between the applicant and Likeshwari was not proved, hence, she cannot be regarded as the legally wedded wife of the applicant. However, the Court held that the non-applicant (the child) is the illegitimate child of the applicant, and therefore, the applicant is legally bound to maintain her/him under the provisions of law. Based on this finding, the learned Family Court awarded maintenance of ₹2,500/- per month in favor of the non-applicant child. The application for maintenance filed by the non-applicant’s 5 mother (Likeshwari) was rejected, as her status as wife was not established. 8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court concerned has rightly passed the impugned judgment. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Family Court for necessary compliance and follow up action. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal