Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Patna High Court Partially Allows Criminal Revision Challenging Maintenance Order; Adverse Inference Drawn from DNA Test Refusal

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Patna High Court, presided over by Honorable Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman, partially allowed a criminal revision petition challenging a maintenance order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gaya. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Syed Alamdar Hussain and Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, sought to set aside the order that directed him to pay maintenance allowances to his wife and child.

The case revolved around a dispute between the petitioner and his wife, who had been residing with her father in Village Barki Takia (Rasalpur), P.S.-Chandauti, District-Gaya. The order in question, passed on April 18, 2016, granted maintenance allowances of Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the wife and child, respectively, under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), effective from the date of the order. The maintenance allowance for the child was to continue until he reached the age of majority.

During the proceedings, the petitioner contended that the child in question was not his biological child and requested a DNA test to establish paternity. The court, acknowledging the petitioner's claim, ordered the DNA test. However, it was revealed that the wife initially agreed to undergo the test but subsequently refused. This refusal led the court to draw an adverse inference against the wife.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the adverse inference, combined with the wife's refusal to undergo the DNA test, indicated that she was involved in an adulterous relationship, disqualifying her from seeking any maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. The counsel relied on a report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, which allegedly supported the contention that the wife and child were not cooperative in carrying out the DNA test.

Examining the evidence and arguments presented, the court concluded that while adverse inference could be drawn from the wife's refusal to undergo the DNA test, it did not conclusively establish her alleged adulterous relationship. As a result, the court ruled that the adverse inference should only affect the wife's entitlement to maintenance, but not serve as conclusive proof of adultery.

Considering the circumstances, including the admitted marital relationship between the petitioner and the wife, the court held that the wife was entitled to maintenance as provided under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The court deemed the maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- per month reasonable and declined to interfere with this aspect of the order. However, taking into account the child's refusal to undergo the DNA test, the court set aside the maintenance allowance of Rs. 2,000/- per month granted to the child.

In its final ruling, the Patna High Court partly allowed the criminal revision application, upholding the maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- per month for the wife, but setting aside the maintenance allowance of Rs. 2,000/- per month for the child.

Date: May 11, 2023

 

Latest Legal News