Tushil Kumar Murmu vs Aatish Mohapatra @ Panda ... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4500 Ori

Orissa High Court

Tushil Kumar Murmu vs Aatish Mohapatra @ Panda ... Opposite ... on 28 February, 2025

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                     CRLMP No.208 of 2025
      (An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
      Constitution of India).

      Tushil Kumar Murmu                  ...                     Petitioner
                                  -versus-

      Aatish Mohapatra @ Panda            ...            Opposite Party

      For Petitioner                 :    Mr. R.S. Samal, Advocate

      For Opposite Party             :                              None


          CORAM:
                     JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

  F       DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:28.02.2025(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. The petitioner by means of this Criminal

Misc. Petition has invoked the extraordinary

jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of

the Constitution of India by praying to set aside the

impugned order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the

learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal in CrP No.127

of 2024.

2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Ravi

Shankar Samal, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that although the petitioner has been

implicated in three criminal cases on the report of the

mother of the OP, but therein the question of paternity

of the petitioner is under challenge and accordingly,

the DNA Profiling report is available in the said

criminal case record, but the same is yet to be proved

and, therefore, granting maintenance to the OP at this

stage, when his paternity is disputed would amount to

travesty of justice and, therefore, the further

proceeding before the learned Judge, Family Court,

Dhenkanal for grant of maintenance to the OP is

required to be stayed.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the

petitioner upon perusal of record, since the petitioner

disputes the paternity of the OP and the DNA report is

available in the criminal case record according to the

learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court poses a

question to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to

whether the DNA report is in favour of the petitioner,

to which the learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the same is not favourable to the petitioner, but

he further argues that unless the report is proved, no

finding can be recorded thereon on the issue of

paternity of OP.

4. Admittedly, the OP has approached the

learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal for grant of

maintenance, but it is quite established principle of law

that even illegitimate child can claim maintenance

from his father inasmuch as the purpose and objective

of Section 125 of CrPC/144 of BNSS is a social

measure to prevent the applicant from destitution or

vagrancy, but it is never intended to punish the father

or husband or the persons referred to in Section 125

of CrPC/144 of BNSS. It is also held by different

Courts that the strict procedure prescribed by law is

not applicable to prove the ingredients for grant of

maintenance, even it has been held by different Courts

as well as this Court that strict proof of marriage is not

required in a proceeding in the nature of Section 125

of CrPC/144 of BNSS, which is a summery proceeding

in nature and can be conducted without the formalities

of pleadings or strict procedure of law for the speedy

disposition of a matter. Besides, if the DNA report is

found relevant for the purpose of deciding the

application of the OP for grant of maintenance, the

petitioner may produce the same before the learned

Judge Family Court to agitate his plea, but this Court

does not see any reason to stall the proceeding at this

stage merely because the petitioner challenges the

paternity of present OP.

5. In view of the aforesaid facts, especially

when the OP claims maintenance through her mother

guardian, who appears to be the informant in a

criminal case against the petitioner and when the DNA

report if relevant to the petitioner can be produced by

the petitioner before the learned Judge Family Court,

this Court does not find any merit in the present

CRLMP and at the same time the order passed by the

learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal is found to be

in accordance with law.

6. In the result, the present CRLMP stands

dismissed.

Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL                                                           Judge

Reason: Authentication         Orissa High Court, Cuttack,

Location: High Court of Orissa Dated the 28th day of February, 2025/S.Sasmal Date: 03-Mar-2025 19:15:46