2026:CGHC:1161 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 20 of 2026 Devram @ Nankun Sahu S/o Shri Chandradhwaj Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Dularpali, Thana And Tahsil- Saraypali, Distt.

KUNAL DEWANGAN Mahasamund C.G.

Digitally signed by KUNAL ... Applicant(s)

DEWANGAN versus Minor Toshkumar Sahu S/o Shri Devram @ Nankun Sahu Aged About 10 Years Through Guardian Mama (Uncle) Hari Sahu S/o Mohan Sahu, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Dularpali, Thana Saraypali, Tahsil Basna, Distt. Mahasamund C.G.

... Non-applicant(s)

For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Non-applicant : None.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

08.01.2026

1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:

“It is therefore, prayed that the revision petition may kindly be allowed and the order of maintenance passed by the learned Family Court may kindly be set aside by dismissing the application filed by the respondent, in the interest of justice.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant minor application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court concerned through his guardian uncle, namely Hari Sahu, and the said application was allowed by the learned Family Court, whereby a maintenance amount of Rs.

5,000/- per month was awarded.

As per facts of the case are that the mother of the non-

applicant, namely Ram Bai Sahu, lodged a report against the applicant at Police Station Saraypali on 04.04.2012, pursuant to which Crime No. 125/2012 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the said report that due to an alleged illegal relationship, the non-applicant minor was born. It was further averred in the application that the applicant is a person having sufficient means, owning a house and agricultural land in the village, and that he failed to provide any amount towards maintenance of the child. It was further stated that a complaint was made before the SDOP, Saraypali, and that the mother of the minor is a mentally challenged lady having no source of income and that both the minor and his mother are dependent upon the guardian uncle, Hari Sahu. It was also alleged that the applicant’s family owns about 70 acres of agricultural land and earns approximately Rs. 20 lakhs per annum, on the basis of which maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month was claimed.

3. After service of notice, the applicant appeared before the learned Family Court and filed his reply, categorically stating that a false report of rape was lodged against him by the mother of the non- applicant, and after due trial, the applicant was honourably acquitted of the charge under Section 376 of IPC. It was further pleaded that the non-applicant minor is not the child of the applicant, and therefore, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

deserves to be dismissed.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Family Court framed three points for determination, including whether the minor Toshkumar was born from the applicant and whether he is entitled to maintenance. After recording evidence, the learned Family Court held that since the applicant did not give his blood sample for DNA testing, an adverse inference was to be drawn against him, thereby presuming him to be the father of the minor child. It is submitted that the applicant did not refuse to give the DNA sample, but merely stated that there was no specific order of the Court directing him to do so. Despite this, and solely relying upon the evidence of the non-applicant witnesses, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order dated 30.09.2025, whereby partly allowed the application filed by the non-applicant and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 5000/- per month to the non-

applicant towards maintenance. Hence this revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family

Court has committed a grave error in law and on facts in pass