High Court · 2025

Revisionist :- Sarvjeet Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Neeraj Kumar Srivastava,Yogesh Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Harvir Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

2. The present revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16.03.2024, whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau has passed the following order: a) Revisionist is directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance to opposite party no. 2, till the report of DNA test comes out proving the opposite party no. 2, as the daughter of revisionist. b) It was further directed to the revisionist that so far as the amount of arrears is concerned, the same shall be paid in ten installments, in the interval of every two months. The first installment would start from the 10th day of April, 2024. It was further directed, if any amount of maintenance has already been paid, the same shall be adjusted in the amount as awarded vide order dated 16.3.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist has taken first ground that the said lady, the mother of opposite party no. 2, is neither his wife nor she is legally married to him. It has further been submitted that due to the alleged relationship between the revisionist and mother of opposite party no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the "X"), the X filed a case against the revisionist under Section 376 I.P.C. and in order to wreak vengeance and extract money from the revisionist, she has falsely stated that due to said relationship between the revisionist and X, the child Ichchha was born out.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the revisionist is a married person and the name of his wife is Mansha, who is having three children out of their wedlock. It has further been submitted that X belongs to his village and she came to stay with him in the State of Gujarat in a rented accommodation, but due to some misunderstanding between the revisionist and X regarding payment of rent of the accommodation and when the revisionist asked X to vacate the accommodation, then she lodged a complaint against him. It has further been submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is not his daughter, she is daughter of someone else. The lady X tried to pressurize him, in order to grab his property and extract money and all the allegations made by the mother of opposite party no. 2 are false and baseless.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has submitted that though, initially the said application was filed by the minor daughter through her mother as legal guardian and therefore, the minor daughter has been made opposite party in the present revision.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State has further submitted that minor daughter has been made a party unnecessarily and in order to reach at an appropriate decision, the mother of opposite party no. 2 ought to have made a party.

7. Be that as it may, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has submitted that, it has come on the record that the revisionist already got married with Mansha and from their wedlock, they have three children, which is not disputed. The dispute arose, when the mother of opposite party no. 2 started living in the rented accommodation of the revisionist. It is alleged that some relationship developed between the revisionist and the mother of opposite party no. 2 and thereafter opposite party no. 2 was born out of that alleged relationship.

8. Learned A.G.A. for the State has referred to paragraph no. 20 of the order dated 16.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau, wherein there is an agreement arrived at between the revisionist and X, showing the first party as Sarvajeet and second party as Anamika Sarvajeet Sharma (Yadav) with the condition that the revisionist would marry with X and give half share in the flat, situated at Vapi in Gujarat, along with some other conditions. Learned A.G.A. has further referred to paragraph no. 23 of the said agreement, wherein in the statement of the mother of the revisionist, it has come on record that the revisionist has got married with some other lady in Gujarat while, he has three children through his first wife. The mother of the revisionist stated that the mother of opposite party no. 2 belongs to her village and in order to extract money from her son started residing in the premises of the revisionist. She has nothing to do with such relationship, which is alleged to have developed between the revisionist and X.

9. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is not duty bound to pay any maintenance, so far as the opposite party no. 2 is concerned, since the revisionist has denied the opposite party no. 2 to be his daughter and therefore not liable to pay any maintenance.

10. Learned A.G.A., in order to ascertain this fact, has submitted that, whether opposite party no. 2 is daughter of revisionist and has been born out of relationship between the revisionist and X, to ascertain the said facts, it was directed by the order dated 16.03.2024, to the revisionist to get DNA test conducted, but nothing has been done so far. Therefore, it cannot be said that revisionist was not given any opportunity to show his bonafide to prove that opposite party no. 2 has not been born out of relationship developed between revisionist and X, but the revisionist by his own volition missed the opportunity.

11. Learned A.G.A. for the State has further argued that even if it is presumed that child is born out of illegal relationship between the parties, i.e. the revisionist and the 'X', such child is also entitled for maintenance as per the status of income of the person, with whose relationship, such child is born, despite the fact, whether the person is married or not. It has further been submitted that the order dated 16.03.2024 passed the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau is in accordance with law and based on the fact and appropriate appreciation of evidence.

12. Having regard to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, as stated in the foregoing paragraphs, it has come on record that X started living in the premises of revisionist and thereafter developed relationship between her and the revisionist. Then X lodged a criminal case under Section 376 I.P.C. In order to get rid of that criminal case, the revisionist entered into a compromise with X with some conditions however, the agreement was not fulfilled, with regard to marrying her (X).

13. Learned counsel for the revisionist constantly took his stand that the daughter/ opposite party no. 2 has not been born out of relationship between X, but from other person. The opposite party no. 2 is not daughter of the revisionist, therefore, she is not entitled for any relief/ maintenance. The said ground lacks merit and cannot be considered to be valid.

14. A perusal of the order dated 16.03.2024 reveals that the Principal Judge, Family Court has considered the every aspect of the matter. The revisionist knowingly and on his own will failed to get the DNA test conducted, despite of the opportunity given by the Judge, Family Court, vide order dated 16.03.2024. Even then, the revisionist missed his opportunity to get the DNA test conducted, which would have made it clear that the opposite party no. 2 is the daughter of revisionist or not. The revisionist failed to bring any document or evidence on record, which would have suggested, that the opposite party no. 2 is not the daughter of the revisionist, but that of a third person. It is well settled law that the illegitimate children are also entitled for the maintenance and other benefits arising from such parents, though not legally wedded, but, entered into some illicit relationship between them.

15. The present revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

16. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 23.8.2025 Gss GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Revisionist :- Sarvjeet Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Neeraj Kumar Srivastava,Yogesh Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Harvir Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

2. The present revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16.03.2024, whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau has passed the following order: a) Revisionist is directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance to opposite party no. 2, till the report of DNA test comes out proving the opposite party no. 2, as the daughter of revisionist. b) It was further directed to the revisionist that so far as the amount of arrears is concerned, the same shall be paid in ten installments, in the interval of every two months. The first installment would start from the 10th day of April, 2024. It was further directed, if any amount of maintenance has already been paid, the same shall be adjusted in the amount as awarded vide order dated 16.3.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist has taken first ground that the said lady, the mother of opposite party no. 2, is neither his wife nor she is legally married to him. It has further been submitted that due to the alleged relationship between the revisionist and mother of opposite party no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the "X"), the X filed a case against the revisionist under Section 376 I.P.C. and in order to wreak vengeance and extract money from the revisionist, she has falsely stated that due to said relationship between the revisionist and X, the child Ichchha was born out.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the revisionist is a married person and the name of his wife is Mansha, who is having three children out of their wedlock. It has further been submitted that X belongs to his village and she came to stay with him in the State of Gujarat in a rented accommodation, but due to some misunderstanding between the revisionist and X regarding payment of rent of the accommodation and when the revisionist asked X to vacate the accommodation, then she lodged a complaint against him. It has further been submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is not his daughter, she is daughter of someone else. The lady X tried to pressurize him, in order to grab his property and extract money and all the allegations made by the mother of opposite party no. 2 are false and baseless.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has submitted that though, initially the said application was filed by the minor daughter through her mother as legal guardian and therefore, the minor daughter has been made opposite party in the present revision.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State has further submitted that minor daughter has been made a party unnecessarily and in order to reach at an appropriate decision, the mother of opposite party no. 2 ought to have made a party.

7. Be that as it may, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has submitted that, it has come on the record that the revisionist already got married with Mansha and from their wedlock, they have three children, which is not disputed. The dispute arose, when the mother of opposite party no. 2 started living in the rented accommodation of the revisionist. It is alleged that some relationship developed between the revisionist and the mother of opposite party no. 2 and thereafter opposite party no. 2 was born out of that alleged relationship.

8. Learned A.G.A. for the State has referred to paragraph no. 20 of the order dated 16.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau, wherein there is an agreement arrived at between the revisionist and X, showing the first party as Sarvajeet and second party as Anamika Sarvajeet Sharma (Yadav) with the condition that the revisionist would marry with X and give half share in the flat, situated at Vapi in Gujarat, along with some other conditions. Learned A.G.A. has further referred to paragraph no. 23 of the said agreement, wherein in the statement of the mother of the revisionist, it has come on record that the revisionist has got married with some other lady in Gujarat while, he has three children through his first wife. The mother of the revisionist stated that the mother of opposite party no. 2 belongs to her village and in order to extract money from her son started residing in the premises of the revisionist. She has nothing to do with such relationship, which is alleged to have developed between the revisionist and X.

9. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is not duty bound to pay any maintenance, so far as the opposite party no. 2 is concerned, since the revisionist has denied the opposite party no. 2 to be his daughter and therefore not liable to pay any maintenance.

10. Learned A.G.A., in order to ascertain this fact, has submitted that, whether opposite party no. 2 is daughter of revisionist and has been born out of relationship between the revisionist and X, to ascertain the said facts, it was directed by the order dated 16.03.2024, to the revisionist to get DNA test conducted, but nothing has been done so far. Therefore, it cannot be said that revisionist was not given any opportunity to show his bonafide to prove that opposite party no. 2 has not been born out of relationship developed between revisionist and X, but the revisionist by his own volition missed the opportunity.

11. Learned A.G.A. for the State has further argued that even if it is presumed that child is born out of illegal relationship between the parties, i.e. the revisionist and the 'X', such child is also entitled for maintenance as per the status of income of the person, with whose relationship, such child is born, despite the fact, whether the person is married or not. It has further been submitted that the order dated 16.03.2024 passed the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau is in accordance with law and based on the fact and appropriate appreciation of evidence.

12. Having regard to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, as stated in the foregoing paragraphs, it has come on record that X started living in the premises of revisionist and thereafter developed relationship between her and the revisionist. Then X lodged a criminal case under Section 376 I.P.C. In order to get rid of that criminal case, the revisionist entered into a compromise with X with some conditions however, the agreement was not fulfilled, with regard to marrying her (X).

13. Learned counsel for the revisionist constantly took his stand that the daughter/ opposite party no. 2 has not been born out of relationship between X, but from other person. The opposite party no. 2 is not daughter of the revisionist, therefore, she is not entitled for any relief/ maintenance. The said ground lacks merit and cannot be considered to be valid.

14. A perusal of the order dated 16.03.2024 reveals that the Principal Judge, Family Court has considered the every aspect of the matter. The revisionist knowingly and on his own will failed to get the DNA test conducted, despite of the opportunity given by the Judge, Family Court, vide order dated 16.03.2024. Even then, the revisionist missed his opportunity to get the DNA test conducted, which would have made it clear that the opposite party no. 2 is the daughter of revisionist or not. The revisionist failed to bring any document or evidence on record, which would have suggested, that the opposite party no. 2 is not the daughter of the revisionist, but that of a third person. It is well settled law that the illegitimate children are also entitled for the maintenance and other benefits arising from such parents, though not legally wedded, but, entered into some illicit relationship between them.

15. The present revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

16. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 23.8.2025 Gss GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad