1 CGHC010305252025 2026:CGHC:36276 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 890 of 2025 Rutvik (Minor) S/o Chitrasen Jangde Aged About 10 Years Aged About 10 Months, Minor Represented Through Mother Lokeshwari Sahu D/o Bheshendra Sahu, R/o Village- Utai, Tahsil And District Durg C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus Chitrasen Jangde S/o Makhan Lal Jangde Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Kargadih, Post- Khopli, Utai, Tahsil And District Durg C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rudranath Mukherjee, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2026 1. I.A. No.2 of 2025 is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision of 55 days. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned. 3. The present revision petition has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Case KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 No.47/2024, whereby the learned Family Court rejected the application preferred by the applicant seeking a direction for conducting DNA test of the non-applicant in the proceedings instituted under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been preferred. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant, a minor child represented through his natural guardian and mother Lokeshwari Sahu, instituted an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court claiming maintenance from the non-applicant. In the application, it was pleaded that the marriage of the applicant's mother with one Tomendra Kumar Sahu was solemnized in the year 2007 according to Hindu rites and customs and after marriage she resided at her matrimonial home situated at Village Kargadih till the year 2016. It was further pleaded that due to matrimonial disputes she started residing separately from her husband from the year 2016 onwards. It was further averred that the non-applicant was acquainted with Lokeshwari Sahu since her childhood and after she started residing separately, the non-applicant frequently visited her and developed physical relations with her. It was alleged that as a consequence of such relationship, Lokeshwari Sahu conceived and thereafter the present applicant was born on 11.03.2023. It was further pleaded that although a complaint had initially been lodged against the non- applicant, the same was withdrawn on the assurance extended by him that he would maintain the applicant. However, despite such 3 assurance, the non-applicant neither accepted the responsibility of the applicant nor paid any amount towards his maintenance, compelling the applicant to institute proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance. 5. Upon service of notice, the non-applicant entered appearance before the learned Family Court and @led his detailed reply denying each and every allegation levelled against him. It was speci@cally pleaded that the applicant was not born out of any relationship between Lokeshwari Sahu and the non-applicant. It was further contended that Lokeshwari Sahu continued to be the legally wedded wife of Tomendra Kumar Sahu and therefore, the applicant was presumed to have been born out of the said lawful wedlock. The non-applicant denied the allegation regarding paternity and disputed his liability to maintain the applicant. 6. In view of the denial of paternity by the non-applicant, the applicant moved an application before the learned Family Court praying that the parties be directed to undergo DNA examination so that the question regarding the paternity of the applicant could be scienti@cally determined. It was speci@cally pleaded that once the non-applicant had denied the paternity of the child, the DNA test had become necessary for arriving at a just and proper adjudication of the dispute. 7. The non-applicant @led his objection to the said application contending that the applicant could not compel him to undergo DNA examination. It was further pleaded that since Lokeshwari Sahu was 4 the legally wedded wife of Tomendra Kumar Sahu, the applicant was presumed to be the legitimate child born out of the said marriage and therefore, no case was made out for directing DNA examination. 8. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the learned Family Court, by the impugned order dated 14.02.2025, rejected the application preferred by the applicant seeking a direction for conducting DNA test. The learned Family Court observed that as the non-applicant had declined to undergo DNA examination, he could not be compelled to furnish his blood sample for such purpose. Aggrieved by the said order rejecting the application for DNA examination, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has committed a manifest illegality in rejecting the application preferred by the applicant for conducting DNA examination. It is submitted that once the non-applicant has speci@cally denied the paternity of the applicant, the only eAective and scienti@c method available to ascertain the truth regarding the paternity of the minor child is by directing DNA examination. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that determination of paternity goes to the root of the controversy involved in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the application preferred by the applicant deserved to have been allowed. Learned 5 counsel would further submit that the learned Family Court has misdirected itself in observing that merely because the non- applicant was unwilling to undergo DNA examination, he could not be compelled to furnish his blood sample. According to learned counsel, the law is well settled that a Civil or Family Court possesses the jurisdiction to direct medical examination, including DNA examination, in an appropriate case where such scienti@c evidence is necessary for arriving at the truth. It is argued that the learned Family Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharda v. Dharampal, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 493, has held that the Court possesses the power to direct medical examination whenever the facts and circumstances of the case so require and that refusal by a party to comply with such direction may entail appropriate legal consequences. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of this Court in Aishwar Dhar Diwan & Others v. Rakesh Diwan, reported in 2006 (3) C.G.L.J. 359, to contend that where the issue of paternity is directly involved, the Court is competent to direct DNA examination and, in the event of refusal by the concerned person, an adverse inference may also be drawn. 10.Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal, Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women and Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy, to contend that although DNA examination cannot be directed as a matter of routine, the same can certainly be ordered where a strong prima 6 facie case is made out and where such examination is eminently necessary for arriving at a just decision. It is submitted that in the present case the very foundation of the proceedings rests upon the paternity of the applicant and therefore, the learned Family Court ought to have exercised its discretion in favour of directing DNA examination instead of rejecting the application solely on the ground that the non-applicant was unwilling to undergo such examination. Therefore, according to him, the impugned order is contrary to the settled principles of law and deserves to be set aside. 11.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant supports the impugned order and submits that the learned Family Court has rightly rejected the application preferred by the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant has failed to make out a case warranting interference with the well-reasoned order passed by the learned Family Court. It is, therefore, prayed that the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed. 12.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and the documents appended with the revision petition. 13.From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering the pleadings of the parties and the submissions advanced on their behalf, rejected the application preferred by the applicant seeking a direction for conducting DNA test. The learned Family Court observed that the non-applicant had declined to undergo DNA examination and therefore, no direction could be issued compelling him to furnish his blood sample. 7 14. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the material available on record and the @ndings recorded by the learned Family Court, this Court is of the considered view that no illegality, perversity or material irregularity is found in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 15.Accordingly, the revision petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 16.OFce is directed to send a certi@ed copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal