JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Chandel, J. - The instant revision has been preferred by the husband against the order dated 24.5.2018 passed by the 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in M.J.C. No.310 of 2015, whereby the Family Court has granted monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- in favour of Respondent No.1/wife.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that marriage between the Applicant and Respondent No.1 was solemnised on 30.5.2009. As alleged by Respondent No.1/wife, after solemnisation of the marriage, the Applicant/husband and his parents started harassing her for demand of dowry. On the occasions of festivals, they used to send her to her maternal house threatening her to bring different dowry articles for them. It was further pleaded by her that when she got pregnant, the husband ousted her from his house and pressurised her for undergoing DNA test and he also denied her to keep with him. On 8.10.2015, Respondent No.2/son took birth. The husband, after birth of Respondent No.2, refused that he is his own child. In these circumstances, due to fear that she may fall mentally ill, now, she herself is not interested to live with the husband. She is unable to maintain herself and the child. The husband has sufficient means to maintain them. Therefore, a claim of maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month was made by her.

3. In his reply, the Applicant/husband only admitted that Respondent No.1 is his wife. He denied all the allegations made against him and pleaded that the wife used to visit and reside at her maternal house most of the times. She resided at her maternal house since 21.11.2014 to 22.3.2015. On 23.3.2015, she returned to his house. On 14.5.2015, she told him that she is pregnant. At that time, her medical examination was got done. In the report, it was disclosed that she was carrying pregnancy of 16 weeks and 5 days. During the period she conceived, she was residing at her maternal house and, therefore, her pregnancy was not from his side. Thus, DNA test was demanded by him, but she refused for the test. She herself left his house without any reasonable cause. Therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance.

4. Before the Family Court, Respondent No.1/wife examined herself as Applicant Witness No.1 and also examined her sister Kumari Mithlesh Pathak as Applicant Witness No.2 and mother Smt. Shakuntala Pathak as Applicant Witness No.3. The Applicant/husband examined himself as Non-Applicant Witness No.1 and also examined his father Lekhram Tiwari as Non-Applicant Witness No.2. Both the husband and wife also led certain documentary evidence before the Family Court. After recording evidence of the parties and hearing arguments on their behalf, the Family Court, vide the impugned order dated 24.5.2018, rejected the claim of maintenance of Respondent No.2/son on the ground that he is not a legitimate or illegitimate child of the Applicant, but granted a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- in favour of Respondent No.1/wife. Hence, the instant revision by the husband.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that in the DNA test report of Respondent No.2/child, it is clearly stated that the Applicant is not biological father of Respondent No.2. Thus, it is clear that Respondent No.1/wife is living in adultery and, therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance from the Applicant. It was further submitted that from the evidence available on record, it is also clear that Respondent No.1/wife is residing separately from the Applicant/husband without any reasonable cause and, therefore, on this ground too, she is not entitled to get any maintenance. The Family Court has granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month in favour of the wife despite there being the fact that the husband has no source of income.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents supported the impugned order.

7. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record with due care.

8. It is not