1 2026:CGHC:5534 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 859 of 2024 Ishwarlal Sahu S/o Late Chintaram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Dubchera, Post Koba, Police Station And Tehsil Daundilohara District- Balod, C.G. (Wrongly Mentioned In The Impugned Order As District Durg) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt Rameshwari Bai W/o Ishwarlal Sahu Aged About 44 Years (Age Wrongly Mentioned In The Impugned Order) R/o Ward No. 16 Dallirajhara, Police Station Rajhara, District Balod, C.G. (Wrongly Mentioned As District Durg) 2 - Prakash Kumar S/o Ishwarlal Sahu Aged About 25 Years (Age Wrongly Mentioned In The Impugned Order) R/o Ward No. 16 Dallirajhara, Police Station Rajhara, District Balod, C.G. (Wrongly Mentioned As District Durg) 3 - Harendra Kumar S/o Ishwarlal Sahu Aged About 24 Years (Age Wrongly Mentioned In The Impugned Order) R/o Ward No. 16 Dallirajhara, Police Station Rajhara, District Balod, C.G. (Wrongly Mentioned As District Durg) ... non-applicants For Applicant : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Satya Kumar Mandloi, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.02.03 12:07:03 +0530 2 2. Mr. Satya Kumar Mandloi, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the judgment dated 30.05.2024, passed by Family Court, Balod (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 33/2010, may kindly be set-aside, in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief Facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 3,000/- per month each for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, alleging that the applicant, after having a social divorce from his first wife Saraswati bai, married respondent No.1 on 29.03.1998 and that two children were born out of their wedlock. It is alleged that after the birth of the first son, the applicant started subjecting respondent No.1 to cruelty, physical assault, and harassment for dowry, demanding an amount of Rs. 20,000/-, and upon her failure to meet the demand, she was driven out of the matrimonial home and compelled to reside with her parents at Sambalpur. It is further alleged that a social meeting was convened at Dondilohara, wherein it was decided that the applicant would keep respondent No.1 with him, pursuant to which she returned to the matrimonial home at Dubchera, but was again harassed by the applicant, his parents, and his first wife, forcing her to lodge a police report and subsequently seek maintenance on the ground that she had no independent means to maintain herself and her minor children. The 3 application for maintenance was initially rejected by the Family Court; however, upon revision, this Hon’ble Court remanded the matter for consideration with respect to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. During the proceedings, disputes arose regarding the paternity of the minor children, leading to multiple applications for DNA testing, which ultimately culminated in orders of this Hon’ble Court allowing such testing. Thereafter, upon consideration of the material available on record, the learned Family Court, by the impugned judgment dated 30.05.2024, granted maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month each to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from the date of filing of the application till they attain majority, holding that the minor children were entitled to maintenance from the applicant. 5. The applicant submitted his reply to the said application and specifically stated that The applicant submits that the impugned order dated 30.05.2024 granting maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month each to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is illegal and arbitrary, as the learned Family Court failed to determine the paternity of the children despite repeated directions of this Hon’ble Court permitting DNA testing. Respondent No.1 is not the legally wedded wife of the applicant, as his first marriage was never dissolved, and therefore no valid marital relationship existed. The applicant, a daily wage labourer earning only Rs. 2,000–2,500 per month and belonging to the BPL category, was denied reasonable time to deposit the DNA testing charges despite extension granted by this Hon’ble Court. The order has been passed without proper reasons, without conclusive proof of paternity, and beyond the financial capacity of the applicant, and therefore deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice. 4 6. On 30.05.2024, the learned Family Court passed an order in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, directing the applicant to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month to each of them towards maintenance, while respondent No. 1 was held not entitled to maintenance as she is not the legally wedded wife of the applicant. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the learned Family Court granting maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month each to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law. It is contended that the learned Family Court failed to conclusively determine the paternity of the minor children despite repeated directions of this Hon’ble Court permitting DNA testing. Respondent No.1 is admittedly not the legally wedded wife of the applicant, as the applicant’s first marriage was never dissolved, and therefore the question of presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act does not arise. The applicant, who is a daily wage labourer earning merely Rs. 2,000–2,500 per month and belongs to the BPL category, was also denied reasonable time to deposit the DNA testing charges despite an extension granted by this Hon’ble Court. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without proper appreciation of facts, without conclusive proof of paternity, and without considering the limited financial capacity of the applicant, and therefore the same deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the 5 documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 10. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is observed that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay maintenance to respondent No. 2 & 3, however, Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is not applicable to determine the legal status of the mother, Mrs. Rameshwari Bai, as she is not the legally married wife of respondent Ishwarlal Sahu, a position already upheld by the Court in its order dated 08/12/2010 and by the Hon’ble High Court of Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No. 21/2011 dated 31/03/2011, confirming that she is not entitled to maintenance. Nevertheless, the primary issue is whether applicant No. 2, Prakash Kumar, and applicant No. 3, Harendra Kumar, are the biological children of respondent Ishwarlal Sahu, which can be examined independently of the mother’s marital status. Accordingly, while Section 112 does not apply to Mrs. Rameshwari Bai for claiming maintenance, the biological relationship of the children with the respondent can be determined separately for the purpose of maintenance. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference 6 by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav