IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA ON THE 23^rd OF JULY, 2025 Criminal Revision No . 4475 of 2022 MISS ISHANI Vs.

VIJAYANT BHIMTE .............................................................................................................................

Appearance Ms. Priyal Rahangdale – Advocate for the applicant.

Despite issuance of notice upon the respondent, nobody has appeared on his behalf.

.............................................................................................................................

ORDER

The case was heard at motion stage.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved with the order dated 28.10.2022 passed in MJC-R No.39/2021 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Balaghat, whereby an application preferred by her under Section 125 of the CrPC has been rejected.

3. The facts of the case in short are that an application was filed by the applicant through her mother (PW/1) on the ground that though her mother was married to one Lokesh Bhimte, but she was having love affair with the respondent and due to her physical relation with the respondent, the applicant was born, but now the respondent is not taking care of her. Her mother filed a report at Police Station Kirnapur, where against the Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVASHISH respondent, a case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Thereafter, the police conducted DNA examination and the charge-sheet was filed and ST No.205/2019 was registered before the trial Court. It was stated in the application that from the DNA report, it is clear that the applicant is the biological daughter of the respondent and hence, as per the provision of Section 125 of the CrPC, respondent is liable to maintain his legal/illegal child. It was further stated in the application that the applicant is studying at Sarthak Public School, Kirnapur, her tuition fee is Rs.2500/- per month and on other heads, she requires Rs.10,000/- maintenance per month. The respondent is having shops of photocopy, computer typing and grocery at Kirnapur from which he is earning Rs.60,000/- per month. It was also stated in the application that the respondent is having 11 acres of agricultural land and developing the said land, he is selling the plots. Cost of the said land was said to be of Rs.50 lac and hence, a maintenance to the tune of Rs.12,500/- per month be ordered in favour of the applicant which is to be paid by the respondent.

4. The respondent in the reply has denied the averments. In the reply, it is further stated that the grounds mentioned in the application are false. The mother of the applicant has filed an application before the Fourth Civil Judge (Junior Division) Balaghat for declaration of paternity that was registered as RCS-A-71/2021 and that, being without any cause of action, was dismissed by the Court. The sessions trial is pending before the Court and the FSL report has not been proved. The applicant is a legal daughter of Lokesh Bhimte. The mother of the applicant is living with her husband Lokesh Bhimte and she has delivered a baby child and in that circumstances, the respondent is not entitled for any maintenance and hence, the application be dismissed.

5. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Balaghat, after considering the Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVASHISH facts and circumstances of the case, by the impugned order dated 28.10.2022 has dismissed the application filed under Section 125 of the CrPC, hence, this revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Family Court has not accepted the relation of the father and daughter (applicant). She has submitted that on the basis of DNA report conducted in criminal case, presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act is not applicable and in that circumstances, the paternity will be of the respondent, who is