Chhattisgarh High Court rejected an application seeking DNA test in a maintenance dispute. The court held paternity was settled by prior final order and evidence, dismissing the revision against the Family Court's maintenance award.
Application for DNA test rejected; revision against maintenance order dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 138 of 2016
---- Reviosioner/applicant
Versus
1. Gautam Das Miri (Fathers Name Wrongly Alleged To Be Dayalu Ram Miri Aged About 1 Years Through Natural Guardian R- 2 (Mother) R/o Vill. Kurru, Teh. Abhanpur, Rev. & Civ. Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Poonbai D/o Sagaanu Ram Aged About 38 Years R/o Vill. Kurru, Teh. Abhanpur, Rev. & Civ. Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Santoshi Miri D/o Dayalu Ram Miri Aged About 2 Years Through Natural Guardian R-2 (Mother) R/o Vill. Kurru, Teh. Abhanpur, Rev. & Civ. Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Non Revisioner/Respondents
For Revisioner/applicant : Shri Shahid Ahmed Ansari, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board
06.11.2017
1 . Heard on I.A.No.1/2017 which is an application for appropriate direction for DNA Test of non-reviosioner No.1- Gautam Das Miri whose paternity has been denied by the revisioner/applicant.
2 . It appears from the record of the Family Court that the application of the same effect was filed before the said Court on 4.9.2015 and the Court after hearing the parties, dismissed the
2
application and same is not challenged before any forum and attained finality.
3 . The DNA Test is not a conclusive piece of evidence and it is a report of opinion. The revisioner has admitted before the Family Court that he married to non-revisioner No.2-Poonbai in Churi (a form of marriage by wearing Bangle) and both were living as wife and husband. Poonbai deposed on oath before the Family Court that non-revisioner No.1 Gautam is son of the revisioner and the same is corroborated by birth certificate Ex.P/3 in which the revisioner is mentioned as father of non-revisioner No.1-Gautam. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, issue of paternity is not open to debate in a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is summary in nature and provides to pay maintenance. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2017 is rejected.
3
legitimate or illegitimate children. The applicant himself has admitted before the Family Court that he married to Poonbai, non-revisioner No.2. There is nothing on record to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court, invoking jurisdiction of revision. Thus, the revision is dismissed.
Sd/
(Ram Prasanna Sharma)
JUDGE
sunita
2 issues framed by the court
Whether maintenance quantum awarded by Family Court under Section 125 CrPC should be interfered with
Whether paternity dispute justifying DNA test warrants interference in summary maintenance proceedings
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dayalu Ram Miri
Gautam Das Miri
Poonbai D/o Sagaanu Ram
Santoshi Miri
Ram Prasanna Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
