Wife denied maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC for desertion despite DNA report confirming child’s paternity.

The Applicants (wife and minor daughter) challenged an order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the 1st Additional Principal Family Judge, Durg

The marriage was solemnized in 2013

The wife alleged she was abandoned during pregnancy and denied entry to the matrimonial home

The Respondent-husband denied paternity and alleged the wife was in an illicit relationship with one Niraj Kumar Sahu, citing Exhibit D-2 as an admission

A DNA report subsequently confirmed the Respondent as the biological father of Applicant No. 2

The Family Court granted Rs. 2,500/- per month to the daughter but denied maintenance to the wife, leading to this revision petition

1. Whether the Family Court was justified in invoking the bar under Section 125(4) CrPC to deny maintenance to the wife on the grounds of living separately without sufficient cause

2. Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded to the minor daughter was adequate given the Respondent's income

The Court applied Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), specifically focusing on the exclusionary mandate of Section 125(4), which disentitles a wife from receiving maintenance if she lives in adultery, refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason, or lives separately by mutual consent

The Court further adhered to the principle that Section 125 is a beneficial legislation intended to prevent destitution

The High Court scrutinized the Family Court’s reliance on Exhibit D-2, where the wife supposedly admitted to a pre-marital relationship and questioned the paternity of her own child

The Court noted a discrepancy: while the DNA report debunked the Respondent’s allegation of non-paternity regarding the child, the Family Court still found the wife’s voluntary departure from the matrimonial home (based on her alleged prior conduct and admissions) as "residing separately without sufficient cause" under Section 125(4) CrPC

The High Court observed that the Respondent, working as a mason with an income of Rs. 20,000–25,000, was legally bound to maintain the child

The Court concluded that the lower court's findings were supported by the evidence on record and did not suffer from jurisdictional errors

It held that the denial of maintenance to the wife under Section 125(4) CrPC and the grant of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the minor daughter did not warrant interference

The Court found no illegality or perversity in the lower court's judgment