Prior criminal-court finding of sexual relationship binds child-maintenance case; Gauhati HC rejects DNA test plea

The respondent filed M.R. Case No. 187/2015 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking monthly maintenance of ₹5,000 for herself and ₹5,000 for her minor child from the petitioner.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi dismissed the application by judgment dated 9 January 2019.

In Criminal Revision No. 25/2019, the Sessions Judge, Hailakandi partly allowed the respondent’s claim and directed the petitioner to pay ₹3,000 per month towards maintenance of the minor child, including arrears from 9 January 2019.

The petitioner challenged the revisional order under Section 482 Cr.P.C., alleging contradictions in the respondent’s evidence regarding the timing of the alleged relationship and pregnancy, and relying on a medical report said not to support her version.

In that criminal case, the Sessions Court found that the petitioner had a continuing physical relationship with the respondent on the promise of marriage, resulting in the birth of the child, although he was acquitted of the charge under Section 376 IPC.

Whether the Sessions Court’s finding in the earlier criminal proceeding—that the petitioner had a physical relationship with the respondent resulting in the birth of the child—could be relied upon, or operated as res judicata, in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Whether the petitioner was liable to pay maintenance to the minor child under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Whether a DNA test ought to be ordered to determine the paternity of the child.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to interfere with the revisional order.

Section 125 Cr.P.C. enables a minor child unable to maintain itself to claim maintenance from its father.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, but such jurisdiction is exercised sparingly and does not ordinarily permit reappreciation of concurrent factual findings.

The Court applied the principle that res judicata or the conclusiveness of a prior adjudication may operate in criminal proceedings, relying on Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 415, Bhagat Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (1972) 2 SCC 466, and State of Rajasthan v. Tarachand Jain, (1974) 3 SCC 72.

It further relied on Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, 2025 3 Supreme 600, and the principles in Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal, Sharda v. Dharmpal, and Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women, holding that DNA testing is not to be ordered as a matter of course; a strong prima facie case of non-access must first be established, and roving inquiries into paternity are impermissible.

The High Court held that the earlier Sessions Court judgment contained a categorical and unchallenged finding that the petitioner had maintained a physical relationship with the respondent on the promise of marriage and that the relationship resulted in the birth of the child.

Since the existence of such a relationship was foundational to determining the petitioner’s paternity and consequent liability under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the prior finding was treated as binding and relevant in the maintenance proceeding under the principle of res judicata.

The petitioner’s alleged evidentiary contradictions and denial were insufficient to displace that finding, particularly as he had not produced cogent evidence challenging paternity.

The request for DNA testing was also rejected because the evidence established sexual relations on multiple occasions and the petitioner failed to demonstrate non-access or any strong prima facie basis warranting such a test.

Consequently, no jurisdictional or legal error warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was made out.

It upheld the applicability of the prior Sessions Court finding regarding the petitioner’s relationship with the respondent and the child’s paternity, rejected the request for DNA testing, and found no ground for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The petition was accordingly dismissed, leaving intact the direction that the petitioner pay ₹3,000 per month as maintenance for the minor child, together with arrears from 9 January 2019.