Santosh Singh Kanwar vs Mampreeti
2026 Latest Caselaw 1291 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Santosh Singh Kanwar vs Mampreeti on 6 April, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                   1




                                                                  2026:CGHC:15545
                                                                                  NAFR

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                        CRR No. 458 of 2026

            Santosh Singh Kanwar S/o Daibar Singh @ Ramsharan Kanwar, Aged
            About 35 Years R/o Village- Darima (Murgipara), Police Station And
            Tahsil- Darima, District- Surguja (C.G.)
                                                                           ... Applicant
                                               versus
            1 - Mampreeti W/o Santosh Singh, Aged About 31 Years Daughter Of
            Ganga Prasad Singh, R/o Darima (Khalpara). Tahsil And Police Station-
            Darima, District- Surguja (C.G.)
            2 - Sanju Lata D/o Santosh Singh, Aged About 5 Months, Minor
            Represented Through Natural Guardian Non- Applicant No. 1 Mampreeti
            Wife Of Santosh Singh, R/o Darima (Khalpara), Tahsil And Police Station-
            Darima, District- Surguja (C.G.)
                                                                     ... Non-Applicants

            For Applicant             : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate

                            Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
                                           Order on Board
            06.04.2026

            1.

This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the

following prayer:

"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 09.02.2026, in the interest of justice."

RAHUL DEWANGAN

Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the non-applicants filed an

application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. seeking grant of

maintenance, inter alia alleging that the applicant and non-applicant

No. 1 were residents of the same village and acquainted since

childhood, and that the applicant, on the false pretext of marriage,

established physical relations with non-applicant No. 1, as a result

of which she became pregnant on two occasions, and on the first

occasion, the applicant allegedly caused termination of pregnancy

by administering tablets, and thereafter continued such relations

leading to a second pregnancy in the year 2024, upon refusal of the

applicant to marry her, non-applicant No. 1 lodged a report at Police

Station Darima, pursuant to which offences under Sections 376(2)

(n) and 313 of IPC were registered and the applicant was tried in

Sessions Trial No. 79/2024, non-applicant No. 1 gave birth to a

female child (non-applicant No. 2) on 14.02.2025, and being

destitute with no independent source of income and residing with

her brother after the demise of her parents, sought maintenance on

the ground that the applicant is employed as a cook earning

approximately Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month but has

neglected to maintain them, upon notice, the applicant appeared

and filed his reply denying all allegations, specifically contending

that non-applicant No. 1 is not his legally wedded wife, that no

physical relationship ever existed between them, that he is not the

biological father of non-applicant No. 2 and is willing to undergo

DNA testing, and further that he has already been acquitted of the

charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 313 of IPC by judgment

dated 21.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, FTC, Ambikapur after full trial, after hearing both parties and

considering the material on record, the learned Family Court partly

allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay Rs.

3,000/- per month as maintenance to non-applicant No. 2 along with

Rs. 3,000/- towards litigation expenses, against which the present

revision has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order

dated 09.02.2026 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary and erroneous,

and thus liable to be set aside. She further submits that the learned

Family Court has failed to appreciate that the non-applicant No. 1 is

not the legally wedded wife of the applicant and there existed no

physical relationship between them, nor did the applicant ever

administer any tablet for termination of pregnancy. It is further

submitted that the Court below further erred in not considering that

the applicant is not the biological father of non-applicant No. 2 and

had specifically expressed his willingness to undergo a DNA test to

ascertain paternity, yet no such direction was issued by the Court,

the learned Court also failed to take into account that although a

criminal case under Sections 376(2)(n) and 313 of IPC was

registered against the applicant, he has been acquitted of the said

charges by judgment dated 21.07.2025 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Ambikapur after a full-fledged

trial, in view of the above, non-applicant No. 2 is not entitled to claim

maintenance from the applicant as a matter of right, and the learned

Court has wrongly granted maintenance without proper legal basis.

The quantum of maintenance awarded is on the higher side

considering the limited income of the applicant, and the learned

Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the documents and

evidence available on record and has arrived at an unfounded and

unsustainable conclusion.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the

pleadings and documents appended thereto.

5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the

learned Family Court, after affording due opportunity of hearing to

both the parties and upon proper appreciation of the pleadings, oral

and documentary evidence available on record, has rightly and

judiciously passed the impugned order, which does not suffer from

any illegality or perversity. The learned Court has taken into

consideration the factual circumstances of the case, including the

relationship between the parties, the birth of the minor child, and the

financial condition of the parties, and has exercised its discretion in

a fair and reasonable manner, despite the denial of paternity by the

applicant, the learned Court has, in the interest of justice and

welfare of the minor child, rightly granted maintenance of Rs.

3,000/- per month to non-applicant No. 2 along with litigation

expenses of Rs. 3,000/-, keeping in view the needs of the child and

the earning capacity of the applicant, and thus, the impugned order

being well-reasoned, balanced and in consonance with settled

principles of law.

6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for

the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding

recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the

Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or

jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by

this Court.

7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to

be and is hereby dismissed.

8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court

concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

Sd/-

(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice

Rahul Dewangan