1 2026:CGHC:15545 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 458 of 2026 Santosh Singh Kanwar S/o Daibar Singh @ Ramsharan Kanwar, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Darima (Murgipara), Police Station And Tahsil- Darima, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Mampreeti W/o Santosh Singh, Aged About 31 Years Daughter Of Ganga Prasad Singh, R/o Darima (Khalpara). Tahsil And Police Station- Darima, District- Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Sanju Lata D/o Santosh Singh, Aged About 5 Months, Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian Non- Applicant No. 1 Mampreeti Wife Of Santosh Singh, R/o Darima (Khalpara), Tahsil And Police Station- Darima, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Non-Applicants For Applicant : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.04.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 09.02.2026, in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the non-applicants filed an application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. seeking grant of maintenance, inter alia alleging that the applicant and non-applicant No. 1 were residents of the same village and acquainted since childhood, and that the applicant, on the false pretext of marriage, established physical relations with non-applicant No. 1, as a result of which she became pregnant on two occasions, and on the first occasion, the applicant allegedly caused termination of pregnancy by administering tablets, and thereafter continued such relations leading to a second pregnancy in the year 2024, upon refusal of the applicant to marry her, non-applicant No. 1 lodged a report at Police Station Darima, pursuant to which offences under Sections 376(2) (n) and 313 of IPC were registered and the applicant was tried in Sessions Trial No. 79/2024, non-applicant No. 1 gave birth to a female child (non-applicant No. 2) on 14.02.2025, and being destitute with no independent source of income and residing with her brother after the demise of her parents, sought maintenance on the ground that the applicant is employed as a cook earning approximately Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month but has neglected to maintain them, upon notice, the applicant appeared and filed his reply denying all allegations, specifically contending that non-applicant No. 1 is not his legally wedded wife, that no physical relationship ever existed between them, that he is not the biological father of non-applicant No. 2 and is willing to undergo DNA testing, and further that he has already been acquitted of the charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 313 of IPC by judgment 3 dated 21.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Ambikapur after full trial, after hearing both parties and considering the material on record, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance to non-applicant No. 2 along with Rs. 3,000/- towards litigation expenses, against which the present revision has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 09.02.2026 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary and erroneous, and thus liable to be set aside. She further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the non-applicant No. 1 is not the legally wedded wife of the applicant and there existed no physical relationship between them, nor did the applicant ever administer any tablet for termination of pregnancy. It is further submitted that the Court below further erred in not considering that the applicant is not the biological father of non-applicant No. 2 and had specifically expressed his willingness to undergo a DNA test to ascertain paternity, yet no such direction was issued by the Court, the learned Court also failed to take into account that although a criminal case under Sections 376(2)(n) and 313 of IPC was registered against the applicant, he has been acquitted of the said charges by judgment dated 21.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Ambikapur after a full-fledged trial, in view of the above, non-applicant No. 2 is not entitled to claim maintenance from the applicant as a matter of right, and the learned Court has wrongly granted maintenance without proper legal basis. 4 The quantum of maintenance awarded is on the higher side considering the limited income of the applicant, and the learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the documents and evidence available on record and has arrived at an unfounded and unsustainable conclusion. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the parties and upon proper appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record, has rightly and judiciously passed the impugned order, which does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The learned Court has taken into consideration the factual circumstances of the case, including the relationship between the parties, the birth of the minor child, and the financial condition of the parties, and has exercised its discretion in a fair and reasonable manner, despite the denial of paternity by the applicant, the learned Court has, in the interest of justice and welfare of the minor child, rightly granted maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to non-applicant No. 2 along with litigation expenses of Rs. 3,000/-, keeping in view the needs of the child and the earning capacity of the applicant, and thus, the impugned order being well-reasoned, balanced and in consonance with settled principles of law. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding 5 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 by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan