MP High Court Grants Maintenance To Woman & Child; Draws Adverse Inference Against Man For Refusing DNA Test
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has awarded maintenance to a woman and her son after holding that an adverse interference could be drawn against a man who refused to undergo a DNA fingerprinting test sought to establish the child's paternity. The court observed that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are welfare-oriented in nature and do not require strict proof of marriage as is necessary...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has awarded maintenance to a woman and her son after holding that an adverse interference could be drawn against a man who refused to undergo a DNA fingerprinting test sought to establish the child's paternity.
The court observed that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are welfare-oriented in nature and do not require strict proof of marriage as is necessary in criminal prosecutions for bigamy.
The bench of Justice Gajendra Singh observed;
"On the contrary the prayer of DNA fingerprinting test is opposed by the respondent for establishing paternity of the revision petitioner no.2 with respondent. Accordingly, this Court considers it a fit case to invoke an adverse inference against the respondent and such adverse inference is drawn. Merely because respondent is claiming that he was legally married to another woman Krishnabai with whom two children have been born cannot be a ground to deny the maintenance to revision petitioner no.1 and 2 as for granting maintenance as it is not required that the marriage in such proceeding be proved strictly as in a trial of offence under section 494 of the I.P.C".
The revision petitioners had filed an application under Section 125 CrPC in 2014, claiming that Seemabai had married the respondent Basantilal about 14 years ago according to Hindu rites and that revision petitioner no 2 was born from the said union. The revision petitioners alleged that they were driven out of the matrimonial house and left without financial support. The petitioners, therefore, sought maintenance claiming that the respondent was a government employee who also earns a substantial income from agricultural land.
The respondent, working as a government teacher, denied being married and disputed the marriage. He claimed that he was already married to another woman, Krishnabai and had two children with her. Per the respondent, revision petitioner no 1 was merely employed as a domestic worker at his house for a monthly salary of ₹1,000. The respondent further argued that she had left the house after committing theft and had filed maintenance proceedings only to harass and blackmail him.
After examining the evidence, the Gram Nyayalaya dismissed the maintenance application, holding that the revision petitioners had failed to establish a marital relationship and paternity of the child. The appellate court affirmed the findings.
During the hearing before the High Court, the bench noted "the revision petitioners preferred I.A. No. 3769/2024 seeking permission to conduct a DNA fingerprinting test to establish the paternity of revision petitioner No.2 with the respondent. The said application was opposed by filing Document No. 2759/2024. Vide order dated 14.03.2024 the application was rejected on the ground that the respondent was not willing to undergo the DNA fingerprinting test and therefore could not be compelled to do so. However, the respondent's refusal to undergo the DNA fingerprinting test shall be considered at the time of final adjudication of the revision petition, in accordance with law".
The bench noted that the respondent admitted that the revision petitioner no. 1 was a relative and resided in his house for a considerable period of time. The court also observed that while initially denying knowledge of revision petitioner no 2, the respondent later admitted that the child of revision petitioner no 1. The court noted that from the revision petitioners' witnesses' statements, it was consistently stated that the respondent and the revision petitioner no 1 had married per Hindu customs and that the child was born to the revision petitioner.
The court noted that the respondent had opposed the request for DNA testing despite disputing paternity and that an adverse inference ought to be drawn against him.
The bench further held that the respondent's claim of being married to another woman could not, by itself, be a ground to deny maintenance in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC.
Allowing the revision petition, the court set aside both impugned orders and directed the respondent to pay maintenance of ₹5,000 to each of the revision petitioner no. 1 and revision petitioner no 2, per month.
Case Title: Seemabai v Basantilal, CRR-4517-2022
For Revision Petitioners: Advocate Anirudh Saxna
For Respondent: Advocate Krishnapal Singh Khichi