1 2026:CGHC:1161 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 20 of 2026 Devram @ Nankun Sahu S/o Shri Chandradhwaj Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Dularpali, Thana And Tahsil- Saraypali, Distt. Mahasamund C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus Minor Toshkumar Sahu S/o Shri Devram @ Nankun Sahu Aged About 10 Years Through Guardian Mama (Uncle) Hari Sahu S/o Mohan Sahu, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Dularpali, Thana Saraypali, Tahsil Basna, Distt. Mahasamund C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.01.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, prayed that the revision petition may kindly be allowed and the order of maintenance passed by the learned Family Court may kindly be set aside by dismissing the application filed by the respondent, in the interest of justice.” KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant minor filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court concerned through his guardian uncle, namely Hari Sahu, and the said application was allowed by the learned Family Court, whereby a maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month was awarded. As per facts of the case are that the mother of the non- applicant, namely Ram Bai Sahu, lodged a report against the applicant at Police Station Saraypali on 04.04.2012, pursuant to which Crime No. 125/2012 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the said report that due to an alleged illegal relationship, the non-applicant minor was born. It was further averred in the application that the applicant is a person having sufÏcient means, owning a house and agricultural land in the village, and that he failed to provide any amount towards maintenance of the child. It was further stated that a complaint was made before the SDOP, Saraypali, and that the mother of the minor is a mentally challenged lady having no source of income and that both the minor and his mother are dependent upon the guardian uncle, Hari Sahu. It was also alleged that the applicant’s family owns about 70 acres of agricultural land and earns approximately Rs. 20 lakhs per annum, on the basis of which maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month was claimed. 3 3. After service of notice, the applicant appeared before the learned Family Court and filed his reply, categorically stating that a false report of rape was lodged against him by the mother of the non- applicant, and after due trial, the applicant was honourably acquitted of the charge under Section 376 of IPC. It was further pleaded that the non-applicant minor is not the child of the applicant, and therefore, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Family Court framed three points for determination, including whether the minor Toshkumar was born from the applicant and whether he is entitled to maintenance. After recording evidence, the learned Family Court held that since the applicant did not give his blood sample for DNA testing, an adverse inference was to be drawn against him, thereby presuming him to be the father of the minor child. It is submitted that the applicant did not refuse to give the DNA sample, but merely stated that there was no specific order of the Court directing him to do so. Despite this, and solely relying upon the evidence of the non-applicant witnesses, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order dated 30.09.2025, whereby partly allowed the application filed by the non-applicant and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 5000/- per month to the non- applicant towards maintenance. Hence this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has committed a grave error in law and on facts in passing the 4 impugned order granting maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month in favour of the non-applicant, despite the fact that the paternity of the minor child has not been proved by any cogent, reliable or admissible evidence. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Mahasamund (Link Court, Saraypali), is contrary to the evidence available on record, as there is absolutely no proof to establish that the non-applicant was born out of any lawful wedlock or relationship between the applicant and the mother of the non- applicant. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant was falsely implicated in a rape case and after a full- fledged trial, he has been acquitted of the charge under Section 376 IPC, and therefore no adverse inference regarding paternity could have been drawn against him. It is further submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever on record to establish that the applicant is the biological father of the non-applicant. The learned Family Court has further erred in drawing an adverse inference merely on the ground that the applicant did not give his blood sample for DNA testing, whereas the applicant had never objected to the DNA test and had only stated that there was no specific direction of the Court requiring him to submit his blood sample. Mere absence of a sample, without a judicial direction, could not legally justify an adverse presumption. Moreover, the non-applicant himself deposited the draft towards DNA expenses on 11.02.2025, but subsequently moved an application on 28.02.2025 seeking return of the said draft, which clearly demonstrates that the non-applicant himself was not willing to obtain the DNA report, thereby weakening his own claim of 5 paternity. The learned Family Court also failed to properly consider and appreciate the reply filed by the applicant and further erred in overlooking the fact that the income and financial capacity of the applicant were never proved by any documentary or substantive evidence. Thus, the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind, misappreciation of evidence, and perversity, and is liable to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order dated 30.09.2025, it transpires that the learned Family Court has considered the pleadings of the parties, the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Family Court has specifically taken note of the conduct of the applicant in not furnishing his blood sample for DNA examination, despite the issue of paternity being directly in question, and has drawn an adverse inference on the basis of settled principles of law. The learned Family Court has also assessed the dependency of the minor child and his mother, the absence of any independent source of income and the social object and beneficial nature of proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which are intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy. The findings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on appreciation of evidence and material available on record and do not suffer from perversity, illegality, or material irregularity. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding 6 recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month to the non-applicant/minor, 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal