1 2025:CGHC:12108 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 153 of 2024 Girish Kumar Sahu S/o Girvar Sahu, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Godhuli, Tahsil Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Ku. Sakshi D/o Girish Kumar Sahu, Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Grandfather Fakira Sahu, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Sangam Chowk, Ward No. 58, Urla, Durg, Tahsil And, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Applicant/Husband : Mr. GVK Rao, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 11/03/2025 1. Applicant-father has filed this instant revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 04.11.2023 passed in Case No.352/2023 by which learned Family Court, Durg, (CG) has directed the applicant to pay sum of Rs.2,500/- per month to the respondent- daughter as maintenance. 2 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that marriage between the applicant and mother of respondent was solemnized on 05.02.2023 and out of their wedlock, respondent was born. After birth of the respondent, applicant-father has ousted her mother from the matrimonial house and, thereafter, mother of respondent was socially separated by the society and Rs.500/- per month has been fixed as her maintenance. Applicant-father is having sufficient source of income and also holding agricultural land, despite this he is not giving single penny towards maintenance to her daughter i.e, respondent, therefore, she has filed an application for grant of maintenance. Upon service of notice, applicant-father filed reply and denied the allegation and stated that respondent is not his daughter and prayed for DNA test. 3. After considering the pleadings made in the application, the learned Family Court vide impugned order has partly allowed the application of respondent-daughter and directed the applicant-father to pay sum of Rs.2,500/- per month to her as maintenance. Hence this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant-father submits that impugned order is perverse and contrary to the law as the learned family Court ignored the fact that applicant is having liability of two more children, who are living with him. The applicant is not having sufficient source of income and agricultural land as stated by the respondent- daughter in her maintenance application and, therefore, applicant is unable to give maintenance amount to the respondent as awarded 3 by the family Court. Hence, it is prayed that this petition may be allowed and impugned order be set-aside. 5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order. 6. It is an admitted fact that respondent mother is legally wedded wife of the applicant. Marriage was solemnized on 05.02.2013. There is a presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act in favour of the non-applicant. Therefore, interim maintenance amount of Rs. 2500/- per month granted by the concerned Family Court is neither perverse nor illegal. 7. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, pleadings made in the petition, submissions of counsel for the applicant, finding recorded by the family Court while passing the impugned order that applicant-father has not produced any material/evidence which shows that applicant has denied that respondent-daughter is not his child, further considering that the amount so granted to the respondent by family Court cannot said to be on higher side, therefore, impugned order does not call for any interference. 8. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-