1 2026:CGHC:5346 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 485 of 2024 Komal Kant Painkra S/o Shri Sant Sai Painkra Aged About 28 Years R/o Kolhenjhariya, Police Station Tumla, Tahsil Farsabahar, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Sukhwari Painkra W/o Shri Komal Kant Painkra Aged About 28 Years R/o Amatoli (Patwajore), Police Station Bagbahar, Tahsil Patthalgaon, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Aman Painkra S/o Komal Kant Painkra Aged About 4 Years R/o Amatoli (Patwajore), Police Station Bagbahar, Tahsil Patthalgaon, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Aman Ansari, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Aman Ansari, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in M.Cr.C. No. 05/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of total Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondents. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that an application under Section 125 of CrPC was filed by the respondents against the applicant for payment of the maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- for both the respondents. As alleged, the respondent No.1 is the wife of the applicant and respondent No.2 is the son of the applicant. The marriage of the applicant and respondent No.1 took place on 21.05.2020 in Jashpur. Out of their wedlock the respondent No.2 born on 31.07.2020. The applicant is not looking after his wife and son, therefore the said application for grant of maintenance was filed on 06.02.2021. 4. The applicant herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the respondents. The learned Family Court after perusal of the documents passed the impugned order, and has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the respondent for grant of maintenance and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance to the tune of total Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondents. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No.1 took place when she was pregnant of 06-07 months and due to the pressure of the family members of the respondent and other reputed colleagues and said marriage was solemnized, and the learned Family Court without considering the said fact passed the impugned order awarding the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent form the applicant, 3 without conducting any DNA test of respondent No.2 who born just after two months of marriage. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in M.Cr.C. No. 05/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of total Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondents, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and upon a careful perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds substantial force in the contention that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No.1 was solemnized at a point of time when respondent No.1 was already carrying a pregnancy of about 06–07 months, and that such marriage was performed under pressure exerted by the family members of respondent No.1 as well as other reputed persons. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 was born merely within two months of the said marriage, which, prima facie, raises a serious and material doubt with regard to the paternity of 4 respondent No.2. The learned Family Court, while passing the impugned order awarding maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month, has failed to advert to or consider the aforesaid crucial factual aspect and proceeded to grant maintenance without undertaking any inquiry or directing a DNA test to ascertain the paternity of respondent No.2, despite a specific plea having been raised in that regard. Thus, the impugned order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in M.Cr.C. No. 05/2021, is hereby quashed and the matter be remanded back to the Family Court, District – Jashpur (C.G.) for a proper consideration and disposal of the case. 9. The Family Court concerned is at liberty to proceed with the matter, and conclude the same without granting unnecessary adjournment to it, preferably within a period of six months from the date of passing of this order, if there is no any legal impediment. 10. Resultantly, this criminal revision is allowed. 11. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar