1 2025:CGHC:40152 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 986 of 2023 Dilip Dewangan S/o Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Dewangan Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Kera, P.S. And Tah. Nawagarh, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Santoshi W/o Shri Dilip Dewangan Aged About 52 Years R/o Vill Kera, P.S. And Tah. Nawagarh, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Present Address Barduli, P.S. And Tah. Jaijaipur, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Durga Dewangan D/o Dilip Dewangan Aged About 6 Years R/o Vill Kera, P.S. And Tah. Nawagarh, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Present Address Barduli, P.S. And Tah. Jaijaipur, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. H. V. Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicants : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. H.V. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Sundar Lal Sahu, learned counsel for the non-applicants. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 be pleased to allow the revision and may kindly be pleased to allow the revision petition and set aside the order dated 24.08.2023 passed by Learned Principle Judge, Link Court Family Court Sakti, Dist- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. No.60/2017, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant No.1, a resident of Village Barduli, became a widow 11 years ago after her husband’s death. The applicant, who worked as a conductor on the “Maa Chandi” bus from Jaijaipur to Bilaspur, became acquainted with her and allegedly married her in 2013, living as husband and wife. From this relationship, on 29.03.2017, a daughter (non-applicant No.2) was born via caesarean section at Mission Hospital. The non- applicant No.1 alleges that after the child’s birth, the applicant abandoned them and moved to his native village Kera, refusing to care for them. She claims he tricked her, being less educated, into signing a promissory note for ₹20,000/-, and now denies that she is his wife. She submits that she is physically weak after surgery, unable to work, and earns only ₹2,000/- per month as an Anganwadi assistant. She seeks maintenance of ₹5,000/- per month for herself and ₹7,000/- per month for her daughter’s care and medical needs, claiming the applicant earns ₹10,000/-per month from conductor work and ₹5,00,000/- annually from farming. She seeks total maintenance of ₹12,000/- per month. 4. The applicant denied the marriage and physical relation with the non-applicant No. 01 as he is already married with Kewara Bai and 3 has got three male child out of marriage. The applicant has speciBcally denied the marriage and physical relation with non- applicant No. 01. The applicant blamed the non-applicant No.1 as blackmailer who extorted Rs. 2,50,000/- from him. The applicant has also denied the source of income as stated by the applicant No. 01. 5. After appreciating the evidence and material available on record, the learned Family Court vide order dated 24.08.2023, partly allowed the application for grant of maintenance in favour of non- applicant No. 02 and rejected the application of non-applicant No. 01 on the ground that the non-applicant No.1 is already married person and the second marriage would be void. The Family Court arrived at the conclusion that the non-applicant No. 02 is legitimate daughter of the applicant whereby it has directed the applicant to pay Rs. 2000/- per month towards maintenance to the non-applicant No.2 and further directed the applicant to bear Rs. 1000/- for expenses of the proceedings. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the basis of oral as well as the documentary evidence adduced by the non- applicants, the learned Principle Judge Family Court wrongly came to the conclusion regarding paternity of applicant No. 02 with applicant. The learned Principle Judge Family Court wrongly ignored the scientiBc test i.e. D.N.A. test which gives accurate result of biological relationship. He further submits that the learned Family Court wrongly interpreted the documents Ex-P/1 & Ex-P/2 which has been made without the conBrmation of non-applicant. Further 4 the learned Principle Judge Family Court held applicant as biological father of applicant No. 02 without interpreting the illegitimacy of child which entitles maintenance. The learned Principle Judge Family Court wrongly awarded the maintenance to the applicant No. 02 without legitimate or the illegitimate relationship with applicant therefore, the order for grant of maintenance is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application Bled under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance amount from the applicant to the tune of Rs. 12000/- for herself and minor. After hearing the parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application for grant of maintenance in favour of non-applicant No. 02 and rejected the application of non-applicant No. 01 on the ground that she has failed to prove that she is the legally married wife of the applicant. The Family Court arrived at the conclusion that the non-applicant No. 02 is legitimate daughter of the applicant whereby it has directed the applicant to pay Rs. 2000/- per month towards maintenance to the non-applicant No.2 and further directed the applicant to bear Rs. 1000/- for 5 expenses of the proceedings. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the applicant, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of Bnancial capability of the applicant and the genuine needs of the non-applicant No.2. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revision and Bnding recorded by learned Family Court concerned, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal