1 CGHC010021422026 2026:CGHC:37563 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 86 of 2026 1 - Dhvanit (Minor) S/o Rajendra Shrivas @ Suraj Aged About 3 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As 3 Months In Impugned Order) Minor Thro9ugh Natural Guardian Mother Lalita Banshkar D/o Parmeshwar Banshkar, R/o Infront Of Bajrang Hotel, Suryavanshi Mohalla, Tifra, Bilaspur, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur C.G. 2 - Lalita Banshkar D/o Parmeshwar Banshkar Aged About 33 Years R/o Infront Of Bajrang Hotel, Suryavanshi Mohalla, Tifra, Bilaspur, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur C.G. ... Applicants versus Rajendra Shrivas @ Suraj S/o Babulal Shrivas Aged About 35 Years R/o Near Janji Talab Sarkanda, Bilaspur,tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur C.G., Business Address- Suraj Hair Dresser Near Seepat Chowk, Bilaspur, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur C.G. … Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Wasim Miyan, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Wasim Miyan, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Also heard Ms. Astha Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 29.12.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 962/2022, whereby the application under Section 125 of the CrPC for grant of maintenance <led by the applicants, has dismissed by the learned Family Court. 3. The case of the applicants, in brief, is that the applicants preferred an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, seeking maintenance from the respondent. The case set up by the applicants before the learned Family Court, in brief, was that applicant No. 2 was earlier working as a sales girl and, during the course of her employment, she came into acquaintance with the respondent. It was alleged that the respondent forcibly established physical relations with applicant No. 2 and thereafter, at Kamakhya Devi Temple, applied vermillion in the parting of her hair and, in the presence of other persons, accepted her as his wife. It was further alleged that, on the same night, the respondent again established physical relations with applicant No. 2 against her will, as a result of which she conceived and subsequently, on 16.06.2022, gave birth to a male child, namely Dhvanit, whom applicant No. 2 claimed to be the son of the respondent. According to the applicants, the respondent had also assured applicant No. 2 that he would marry her, however, subsequently, he refused to acknowledge the child as his son. Consequently, applicant No. 2 lodged a complaint against the respondent at Police Station Sirgitti, wherein, according to the 3 applicants, the respondent admitted that applicant No. 1 was his son. It was further pleaded that the respondent was already a married man having a wife and two children, whereas applicant No. 2 was unemployed and had no independent source of income for her livelihood and for maintaining the minor child. It was alleged that the respondent was running a salon under the name and style of “Suraj Hair Dresser” near Sipat Chowk, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, and was earning approximately Rs.30,000/- per month. On the aforesaid allegations, the applicants claimed monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- from the respondent. 4. The respondent, in his reply, denied the allegations levelled against him and contended that he was already married and was residing with his wife and children happily. It was his speci<c case that applicant No. 2 was an educated and major woman and was fully aware of his marital status and family circumstances, and despite having knowledge thereof, she continued to pressurize him to marry her. According to the respondent, when he categorically informed applicant No. 2 that he was already married and did not intend to marry another woman, she became annoyed and, with an ulterior motive, instituted the proceedings before the learned Family Court by making false and concocted allegations. The respondent further denied having subjected applicant No. 2 to any coercion, force or illegal physical exploitation and contended that the allegations in that regard were wholly false. It was also pleaded that applicant No. 2 had lodged a false FIR against him at Police Station Sarkanda under Section 376(2) of the IPC, in which he was granted 4 anticipatory bail, and had further lodged another false case under Sections 294 and 506-B of the IPC at Police Station Sirgitti. On the basis of the aforesaid contentions, the respondent opposed the claim for maintenance and prayed for dismissal of the application. 5. After hearing the parties and upon consideration of the pleadings and material available on record, the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, decided the application preferred under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and, vide impugned order dated 29.12.2025, dismissed the application <led by the applicants. Being aggrieved by and dissatis<ed with the aforesaid order, the applicants have preferred the present revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court has committed material irregularities and has failed to properly appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record while dismissing the application preferred by the applicants under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.. He further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicants have no independent or suEcient source of income to maintain themselves and are unable to meet their basic expenses, and therefore, the rejection of their claim for maintenance is contrary to the facts and law applicable to the case. He also submits that the learned Family Court has further erred in not considering the material fact that applicant No. 2 is the biological mother and the respondent/respondent is the biological father of applicant No. 1, which fact stands duly corroborated by the DNA test report conducted by the police during the course of investigation in the 5 criminal case registered against the respondent, and the said DNA test report was produced before the learned Family Court and marked as Ex.P/12, a copy whereof has also been <led as Annexure P/2. He further submits that the learned Family Court has also failed to appreciate the admission made by the respondent in his cross-examination regarding his signature on Ex.P/13, which is a mutual agreement executed before Police Station Sirgitti, wherein the respondent had speci<cally undertaken that after the birth of the child, he would keep the child in his custody, thereby lending further support to the applicants’ case regarding the paternity of applicant No. 1, a copy of the said agreement having been <led as Annexure A-3. He also submits that the applicants had also placed on record several documents evidencing the expenses incurred by applicant No. 2 towards her own livelihood and the maintenance and upbringing of applicant No. 1, but the learned Family Court has failed to consider the same in its proper perspective. He also submits that the applicants had duly established their case through cogent oral as well as documentary evidence, including the DNA test report and the aforesaid admission of the respondent, demonstrating that applicant No. 1 is the biological child of the respondent and that applicant No. 2 is his mother, yet the learned Family Court has discarded the material evidence and erroneously rejected the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the applicants are entitled to appropriate maintenance in accordance with law. 6 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the revision petition and submits that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the pleadings, evidence and material available on record, has rightly dismissed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.. She also submits that the impugned order is well- reasoned and does not suHer from any illegality, perversity or material irregularity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction, and therefore, the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by them and the material available on record, has examined the claim of the applicants under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and has thereafter dismissed the application vide order dated 29.12.2025. The learned Family Court has considered the respective submissions and the evidence brought on record, particularly the claim of applicant No. 2 and the defence of the respondent, and has recorded its <ndings on the basis of the material available before it. However, the claim of applicant No. 1, being the minor child, is required to be considered independently, particularly in view of the scienti<c evidence available on record regarding his paternity. The DNA test report produced before the learned Family Court and marked as Ex.P/12 speci<cally establishes that applicant No. 1 is the biological child of the respondent and applicant No. 2. Thus, the claim of the minor 7 child stands on a distinct footing from the claim of applicant No. 2. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the <nding of the learned Family Court insofar as it relates to applicant No. 2 does not call for interference. The learned Family Court has duly considered the pleadings, evidence and circumstances relating to her claim and has rightly rejected her prayer for maintenance, therefore, to that extent, the impugned order deserves to be aErmed. 11. However, so far as applicant No. 1 is concerned, the material on record clearly indicates that he is the biological son of the respondent. The DNA test report, marked as Ex.P/12, which was conducted during the course of investigation in the criminal case, conclusively establishes the biological relationship between the respondent and applicant No. 1, and there is no material on record to disbelieve or discard the said scienti<c evidence. The said fact is further corroborated by Ex.P/13, i.e. the mutual agreement executed before Police Station Sirgitti, bearing the signature of the respondent, wherein he had acknowledged the child and had stated that after his birth he would keep the child in his custody. Thus, the paternity of applicant No. 1 having been established by cogent and reliable evidence, the respondent, being his biological father, cannot avoid his obligation to maintain the minor child. It is also not in dispute that applicant No. 1 is a minor, aged about 03 years and has no independent source of income and is dependent upon the 8 persons responsible for his care, upbringing and education. The obligation to provide for the basic necessities and proper upbringing of a minor child is a continuing obligation of the father. Having regard to the age and needs of applicant No. 1, the material available regarding the respondent’s earning capacity, the circumstances of the parties and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court considers a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month to be just and reasonable maintenance for applicant No. 1. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.12.2025 is modi<ed to the aforesaid extent. The application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. <led by applicant No. 2 shall remain dismissed, as has rightly been decided by the learned Family Court, whereas the claim of applicant No. 1 is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to applicant No. 1 with eHect from 01.09.2026. The amount shall be paid regularly by the respondent in accordance with law. 13. Accordingly, the revision petition stands partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 14. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the certi<ed copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan