A minor child’s DNA-established paternity independently entitles him to maintenance from his biological father.

Applicant No. 2 alleged that the respondent established physical relations with her, represented her as his wife after applying vermillion at Kamakhya Devi Temple, and fathered Applicant No. 1, who was born on 16 June 2022.

She further alleged that the respondent subsequently refused to acknowledge the child, despite an alleged admission before the police.

The respondent denied the allegations, contending that he was already married, that Applicant No. 2 knew of his marital status, and that the proceedings were based on false accusations.

Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, claiming that Applicant No. 2 was unemployed and that the respondent earned approximately ₹30,000 per month from his salon business.

The Family Court, Bilaspur, dismissed the application by order dated 29 December 2025 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 962/2022.

In revision, the applicants relied principally on a DNA test report marked Ex. P/12 and a mutual agreement bearing the respondent’s signature, marked Ex. P/13, in which the respondent allegedly acknowledged the child.

Whether the Family Court was justified in rejecting Applicant No. 2’s claim for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

Whether Applicant No. 1, whose biological paternity was established through DNA evidence, was entitled to maintenance from the respondent under Section 125 CrPC.

Whether the impugned order required modification insofar as it denied maintenance to the minor child.

The Court applied Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which enables a wife, child, or other qualifying dependent to claim maintenance from a person having sufficient means who neglects or refuses to maintain them.

The claim of a minor child is independent of the mother’s entitlement, and a biological father has a continuing obligation to provide for the child’s basic necessities, upbringing, and education.

The Court treated reliable scientific evidence establishing paternity, particularly the DNA test report, as sufficient to determine the respondent’s biological relationship with the minor.

No judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court declined to interfere with the Family Court’s rejection of Applicant No. 2’s personal claim for maintenance, holding that the Family Court had properly considered the pleadings, evidence, and circumstances relevant to her claim.

However, it separately assessed the minor’s entitlement.

The DNA report marked Ex. P/12 established that Applicant No. 1 was the biological son of the respondent, and there was no material warranting rejection of that scientific evidence.

The finding was further corroborated by Ex. P/13, the agreement bearing the respondent’s signature, in which he acknowledged the child and stated that he would take custody of him after birth.

Since the child was approximately three years old, had no independent income, and was dependent upon others for care and upbringing, the respondent could not evade his continuing parental obligation.

Considering the child’s age and needs, the respondent’s earning capacity, and the circumstances of the parties, the Court assessed ₹5,000 per month as reasonable maintenance.

The dismissal of Applicant No. 2’s claim for maintenance was affirmed.

However, the impugned order was modified in favour of Applicant No. 1, and the respondent was directed to pay him maintenance of ₹5,000 per month with effect from 1 September 2026, regularly and in accordance with law.

The Registrar (Judicial) was directed to transmit a certified copy of the order to the Family Court for necessary action.