Ravikant Sahis S/o. Dilharan Prasad, Aged About 43 Years R/o. Thakurdiyapara Saktigudi Ward No v. 1
Case Details
KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:26854 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 560 of 2023 Ravikant Sahis S/o. Dilharan Prasad, Aged About 43 Years R/o. Thakurdiyapara Saktigudi Ward No. 11 Post Pahriya, Chowki Pantora, P.S. And Tahsil Baloda, District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Kaleshwari, W/o. Ravikant Sahis, Aged About 32 Years R/o. Thakurdiyapara Saktigudi Ward No. 11 Post Pahriya, Chowki Pantora, P.S. And Tahsil Baloda, District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. Present Address - Jarve (B) Tahsil Baloda, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh 2 - Ayush Kumar, S/o. Ravikant Sahis, Aged About 12 Years Respondent
Legal Reasoning
No. 2 And 3 Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Kaleshwari, Or/o. Village - Thakurdiya Para Saktigudi Jarve(B) Tahsil Baloda, District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 3 - Mannat, D/o. Ravikant Sahis, Presently Aged About 2 Years, 6 Moths. Respondent No. 2 And 3 Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Kaleshwari, Or/o. Village - Thakurdiya Para Saktigudi Jarve(B) Tahsil Baloda, District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None present. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 23.06.2025
Decision
Order on Board 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and set aside the order passed by the Court below and may kindly be pleased to allow the application made by the applicant/husband seeking permission for D.N.A. testing of respondent No.3 and applicant/husband, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the the non-applicant No. 1 was married to the applicant, and out of their wedlock, non-applicant No. 2/Aayush Kumar was born. Initially, their marital life was peaceful. However, around two years ago, the behavior of the applicant started to change. He began doubting the character of the non- applicant and subjected her to physical and verbal abuse, continuously harassing her both physically and mentally. He would frequently assault her over trivial matters and even deprived her of basic necessities such as food and care. When non-applicant No. 1 became pregnant for the second time, the applicant accused her of infidelity, claiming the child she was carrying was not his and demanded to know who was responsible for her pregnancy. Despite her clarifying that the child was his, he continued to abuse her. When she was six months pregnant, the applicant assaulted her and threw her out of the house. Thereafter, she took shelter at her parental home and has been living there since. The Non-applicant No. 3, namely Miss Mannat, was born at her maternal village Jarve. 3 It has now been approximately two years since she has been residing at her parental home. After being assaulted, abused, and thrown out of the house, the non-applicant lodged a complaint at Pantora Police Outpost. The police summoned the applicant and considering it a family matter, attempted reconciliation and sent the non-applicant back with him. However, after returning, the applicant severely beat her again, expelled her from the house and told her never to return. The non-applicant then called her father and went back to her maternal home. She has also undergone medical treatment in Champa. After the birth of non-applicant No. 3, she and her father convened several social meetings involving village elders and community members to reconcile the matter. The applicant was also called to these meetings and he was advised by community leaders to accept the non-applicants and lead a harmonious marital life. However, he refused to heed anyone’s advice and declined to take back the non-applicants. Even when the non-applicant visited the applicant’s house with her father to try to reconcile, the applicant again refused to accept them and declared that he intended to remarry and would not live with the non-applicants. As a result, the non-applicant is compelled to live a dependent life with her parents. The applicant forcibly took the non-applicant’s ration card and kept it with him, due to which the non-applicant is unable to avail benefits under government welfare schemes, including ration supplies. Consequently, the non-applicants are facing severe financial hardship. It has also come to the non-applicant’s 4 knowledge that the applicant is actively searching for a prospective bride to remarry. The non-applicant No.1 is a homemaker and semi- literate. The applicant is a physically fit person engaged in masonry work, and also undertakes wall putty contracts, earning an income of approximately ₹40,000/- per month. Additionally, he is involved in agricultural work in his village, from which he earns around ₹1,00,000/- annually. Despite being capable, he has failed to provide any financial assistance to the non-applicants. Due to lack of financial support, the Non-applicants is unable to bear her day to day expenses and is facing great hardship. Therefore, she along with her two child filed this application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance that the non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 be granted ₹10,000/- each per month, and the applicant No. 3 be granted ₹5,000/- per month, totaling ₹25,000/- per month as interim maintenance. Within the proceedings of under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code the applicant/husband has filed an application seeking permission for D.N.A. testing of non-applicant No. 03 and applicant himself such that the paternity of non-applicant No. 3 can be ascertained and it is also necessary for just and proper adjudication of the maintenance application. The non-applicants filed the reply of application seeking permission for D.N.A. testing of non-applicant No. 03 and applicant/husband and refuted its content stating that non-applicant No. 03 is born out of their cohabitation therefore there is no need for D.N.A. testing. 3. The learned trial court has rejected the application filed by the 5 applicant/husband without passing any reasoned order as to why the applicant seeks permission for D.N.A. testing of non-applicant No. 03 and applicant/husband is rejected, that there is specific pleading made by the applicant/husband that the non-applicant No. 01 has left his and living adulterous life, that the D.N.A. testing is necessary to ascertain the paternity of the non-applicant No. 03, that the D.N.A. test is also beneficial for the non-applicant No. 03 that her paternity will not be left in dark, that since the non-applicant No. 01 knows the truth therefore she denied the D.N.A. test, that the impugned order has been passed without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court has rejected the application without passing any reasoned/speaking order as to why the application seeking permission for D.N.A. testing of respondent No. 03 and applicant/husband is rejected. The learned trial Court erred in not appreciating that the applicant is ready to bear the expenses of the D.N.A. testing. The learned trial Court has erred in appreciating that there is specific pleading made by the applicant/husband that the Non-applicant No.1 has left his and living adulterous life. The learned trial Court has erred in not appreciating that the D.N.A. testing is necessary to ascertain the paternity of the non-applicant No. 03 and that the D.N.A. test is also beneficial for the non- applicant No. 03 that her paternity will not be left in dark. He further submits that the learned trial Court wrongly rejected the application 6 of D.N.A. Test ignoring the facts of the case and has also failed to consider that the paternity of the non-applicant No. 03 is in question therefore, the order is contrary to the law and liable to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the present case has been filed by the non-applicants under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of maintenance. In the course of the proceedings, the applicant has filed an application seeking DNA test. According to the applicant, he is not the biological father of Non-applicant No.3/Kumari Mannat, and therefore, he wanted to conduct DNA test of Kumari Mannat. However, the non-applicant No.1 has denied this allegation. Further it is pertinent to note that the present case has been filed solely for the purpose of claiming maintenance. 7. The trial Court while relying upon the dictum rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Aparna Ajinkya Phirodiya vs. Ajinkya Arun Phirodiya” (S.L.P. Civil No. 9855/2022, decided on 20.02.2023) has held that it does not appropriate to conduct DNA test in the present case and therefore, rejected the application vide order dated 02.05.2023 for conducting DNA Test. 8. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, as also considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and further considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or 7 infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 9. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is refused. The revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. However, this Court hope and trust that the trial Court would make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, if there is no legal impediment. 11. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) Sd/- Kunal