The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed that a father’s denial of paternity, without conclusive evidence or judicial determination, cannot defeat a minor child’s statutory right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court dismissed the revision petition challenging the Family Court’s order granting ₹3,000 per month maintenance to the minor daughter, emphasizing that the obligation to maintain a child is independent of marital status or disputed paternity.
The Verdict
The applicant’s revision petition was dismissed. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the Family Court’s order granting ₹3,000 per month maintenance to the minor daughter under Section 125 CrPC. The core legal holding is that a father’s bald denial of paternity, without a DNA test or other conclusive proof, does not absolve him of his statutory duty to maintain his minor child. The Court found no illegality or arbitrariness in the Family Court’s reasoning and declined to interfere.
Background & Facts
The applicant, Jitendra Gupta, and the non-applicant No. 1, Geeta Rani Sahu, were married in June 2019 under Hindu rites. After four months of marriage, Geeta Rani allegedly left the matrimonial home, claiming cruelty and unlawful demands by the applicant and his family. She filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking ₹15,000 per month maintenance for herself and her minor daughter, Richna, born in 2020. The applicant denied all allegations, asserting that Geeta Rani had willfully deserted him and threatened false criminal cases. He claimed he was a daily wage labourer earning ₹200 per day and could not afford maintenance. He also disputed paternity of the child and sought a DNA test, which the Family Court did not order.
The Family Court rejected Geeta Rani’s claim for self-maintenance on the ground that she was living separately without sufficient cause. However, it granted ₹3,000 per month maintenance to the minor daughter, holding that the father’s obligation to maintain his child is absolute and cannot be evaded by unsubstantiated denials. The applicant challenged this order before the High Court, arguing that the Family Court ignored his evidence of desertion, failed to consider his financial incapacity, and erred by not directing a DNA test before fastening liability.
The Legal Issue
The central legal question was whether a father’s denial of paternity, without a court-ordered DNA test or other conclusive evidence, can justify the rejection of a minor child’s claim for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel argued that the Family Court erred in awarding maintenance without determining paternity. He contended that the child’s paternity was seriously disputed, and the Court’s failure to order a DNA test violated principles of natural justice. He cited the applicant’s financial hardship - earning ₹200 per day - and his obligation to support elderly parents and a dependent sister. He relied on the fact that the mother had deserted the matrimonial home and was employed, suggesting the child’s maintenance should be denied or reduced. He further argued that the Family Court ignored his complaints of harassment and threats, which indicated the mother’s mala fide intent.
For the Respondent
The non-applicants did not appear or file any written submissions. The Court proceeded on the basis of the Family Court’s findings and the record before it.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court emphasized that Section 125 CrPC is a social welfare provision designed to prevent destitution. The obligation to maintain a minor child is not contingent upon marital harmony, legitimacy, or the resolution of paternity disputes through forensic testing. The Court noted that the Family Court had carefully evaluated the evidence, including the child’s age, the applicant’s alleged income, and the cost of living in the region. The maintenance amount of ₹3,000 was deemed modest and reasonable.
"It is well settled in law that it is the legal and moral obligation of a father to maintain his minor daughter, and such responsibility cannot be shirked merely by raising bald or unsubstantiated objections."
The Court rejected the argument that a DNA test was mandatory before granting maintenance. It held that in proceedings under Section 125, the standard of proof is not beyond reasonable doubt but based on preponderance of probability. The applicant’s denial alone, without corroboration or judicial direction for testing, could not override the child’s statutory right. The Court further observed that the applicant had not moved any formal application under Section 125(5) CrPC seeking a DNA test, nor had he demonstrated financial incapacity sufficient to warrant non-payment.
The Court also noted that the Family Court had correctly rejected the mother’s claim for self-maintenance due to her desertion, thereby balancing the equities. The applicant’s financial hardship, while acknowledged, did not absolve him of his duty to support his child.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment reinforces that Section 125 CrPC prioritizes the welfare of the child over contested paternity in maintenance proceedings. Practitioners must understand that a mere denial of paternity by the alleged father is insufficient to dismiss a child’s claim. Courts are not required to wait for DNA test results before granting maintenance, especially when the child’s basic needs are at stake. However, if a father files a formal application under Section 125(5) seeking a DNA test and provides prima facie grounds for doubt, courts may consider directing it as a procedural safeguard.
This ruling limits the scope for delaying tactics in maintenance cases. Lawyers representing fathers must now focus on proving actual financial incapacity or demonstrating credible, documented evidence of non-paternity rather than relying on bald denials. Conversely, counsel for mothers and children can confidently invoke this precedent to resist dismissals based on unverified paternity challenges.
The judgment also clarifies that while desertion may bar spousal maintenance, it does not extinguish parental obligations toward children. This distinction is critical in drafting pleadings and framing arguments in family court proceedings.
