1 2025:CGHC:29202 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1403 of 2019 Rajendra Prasad Tiwari S/o Kunj Lal Tiwari Aged About 65 Years Occupation Ex - Armyman (CIF), R/o Village Ahiwara, Police Station Nandini, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Prabha Devi W/o Rajendra Tiwari Aged About 34 Years Occupation House Wife, R/o Village Mohbhattha, Police Station Saja, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 2. Yog Kumar Tiwari S/o Rajendra Prasad Tiwari Aged About 5 Years Minor, Through Legal Guardian Mother Prabha Devi Wife of Rajendra Tiwari, , R/o Village Mohbhattha, Police Station Saja, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. None appeared on behalf of respondents to press this criminal revision when the matter is called for hearing today. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.02 10:41:38 +0530 2 3. 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 set-aside the impugned order dated 14.08.2019 (Annexure A-1) to the extent of relief of maintenance granted to the non-applicant No. 2 and may kindly be pleased to remand the matter back to the family Court for it’s decision afresh after deciding the DNA test application filed by the applicant, in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case that the the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Bemetara, claiming maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- each from the present applicant, alleging themselves to be his wife and son. It was specifically pleaded in the application that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 28.08.2012 as per rituals at Durg, after the death of the applicant’s first wife, and an Ekrarnama was also signed. After the marriage, the parties resided as husband and wife, and out of the said wedlock, a male child (respondent No. 2) was born on 23.06.2013. Subsequently, the applicant harassed respondent No. 1 and ousted her from his house. It was pleaded that on 16.07.2018, she was finally ousted from the house along with the child, and all the records of the child were retained by the applicant. This incident was reported to the police, but no action was taken. It was stated that due to the 3 harassment committed by the husband, she was unable to reside with the applicant and was forced to live with her mother. It was further stated that the applicant was an ex-armyman, who retired in 2012, and was receiving a pension of Rs. 27,000/- per month. Additionally, he was running a grocery shop and owned a house in Village Jara. Accordingly, she claimed maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- each for herself and the child. 5. The applicant filed his reply, pleading that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized by fraud. At the time of marriage, it was stated that respondent No. 1 had been divorced by her first husband, namely Babu Lal Pandey, and that the divorce-related documents would be shown later. In this respect, a suit is pending before the Family Court, Durg, seeking a declaration that the marriage is null and void. It was further pleaded that after the marriage, respondent No. 1 remained in contact with her first husband, Babu Lal, and when the applicant attempted to counsel her, she used to assault and harass him. It was further pleaded that he is not the husband of respondent No. 1 and that respondent No. 2 is not his son. It was also stated that she had lodged a false report with the police, which was found to be false. It was further stated that respondent No. 1 had not been divorced by her first husband, and by concealing this fact, she solemnized the marriage with the applicant. Hence, it was prayed that the application be rejected. 6. The learned Family Court, after considering the evidence on record, passed the impugned order dated 14.08.2019 (Annexure A-1), 4 wherein it rightly held that respondent No. 1 is not the legally wedded wife of the applicant but wrongly held respondent No. 2 to be the son of the applicant. Accordingly, while partly allowing the application, the learned Family Court granted maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month to respondent No. 2 and rejected the application filed by respondent No. 1. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 14.08.2019 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Family Court suffers from impropriety, perversity, and incorrectness, and therefore is not sustainable in law. The learned Family Court failed to decide the DNA application filed by the applicant seeking a paternity test of respondent No. 2. The applicant had filed the said application, demonstrating his intention and willingness to undergo a DNA test to confirm the paternity of the child. By the order sheet dated 28.02019, the learned Family Court directed the respondents to file their reply, which was duly filed by them. However, instead of deciding the said application, the learned Family Court proceeded to pass the final order, which is highly illegal and against the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further submits that the learned Family Court did not decide the application for a DNA test, which was the root of the case. No steps were taken by the learned Family Court in this regard, despite the direction of the Hon’ble High Court in CRR No. 479/2019, wherein, by order dated 05-04-2019, the Hon’ble Court directed the Family Court to decide the application for a DNA test submitted by the applicant. He also submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the 5 evidence led by the applicant, wherein he had specifically challenged the paternity of respondent No. 2. The learned Family Court ought to have rejected the application filed by respondent No. 2. The learned Family Court exceeded its jurisdiction in holding that respondent No. 2 is the son of the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent No. 02 cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek