The court established that determining biological parentage is vital for maintenance claims, endorsing DNA testing as an essential tool in cases where parentage is disputed.

JUDGMENT :

MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard Ms. Pratibha Jaiswal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Saurabh Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the impugned judgment and order dated 1st March, 2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonbhadra in Criminal Misc. Case No. 575 of 2019 (Khusbu Vs. Jawahir Lal Jaiswal) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Pannuganj, District-Sonbhadra, whereby the trial court while allowing the application of opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. till the date of passing of the impugned judgment and Rs. 6,000/- per month from the date of passing of the impugned judgment till the date of her marriage, towards monthly maintenance allowance.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that it is admitted fact that marriage of the revisionist has been solemnized with the mother of opposite party no.2, namely, Hirmani/Himani on 23rd June, 1994 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Rituals. Since mother of opposite party no.2 i.e Himani/Hirmani was very beautiful and the revisionist was not handsome, so she did not like him since her marriage and used to harass and insult him on every small matter. Himani/Hirmani wanted to leave the revisionist and live with someone else, that is why she used to fight with the revisionist on every small matter. In connection with the same, in February, 2000, Himani/Hirmani i.e. mother of opposite party no.2 left the house of the revisionist without any reason and was living with another person, namely, Devanand @ Pachdev. The revisionist had tried best effort to take Himani/Hirmani back to his house but he did not get success. From illicit relationship of Himani/Hirmani with Devanand @ Pachdev, opposite party no.2, namely, Khusbu was born on 1st January, 2011. On 18th November, 2019, opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. through her mother Himani/Hirmani for claiming maintenance allowance from the revisionist as he is her real father, which was registered as Case No. 575 of 2019. On 1st September, 2021 the revisionist filed his objection in the said case and Himani/Hirmani also filed her statement of affidavit. Since Himani/Hirmani i.e. mother of opposite party no.2 was never in a relationship with the revisionist after February, 2000, how could the revisionist be the father of her child like opposite party no.2. As such, the revisionist moved an application before the trial court for getting D.N.A. test of opposite party no.2 and himself conducted for ascertaining the correct parentage of opposite party no.2. The said application was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 1st February, 2025 against which the revisionist filed Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 28087 of 2025 (Jawahir Lal Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. & Another), which is still pending before the Hon'ble High Court.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist then submits that when the mother of opposite party no.2 after February, 2000 had never established physical relationship with the revisionist and she has been in adultery with one Devanand @ Pachdev and from their illicit relationship, opposite party no.2 was born, then under such circumstances, the opposite party no.2 is not entitled to get any maintenance allowance from the revisionist, as he is not her biological father.

5. Lastly, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that s