The Indore Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has granted monthly maintenance to a woman and her son after setting aside orders of two lower courts that had rejected their claim. The court held that the respondent's refusal to undergo a DNA test could not be ignored and justified drawing an adverse inference against him.
Background of the Case
Seemabai and her son had approached the Gram Nyayalaya in Rajgarh seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They claimed that Seemabai had married Basantilal according to Hindu rites around 14 to 15 years earlier and that the child was born from that relationship. They alleged that they had been forced to leave the matrimonial home and were left without financial support.
Basantilal denied the marriage and disputed the child's paternity. He maintained that he was already married to another woman and claimed that Seemabai had merely worked at his house as domestic help.
Both the Gram Nyayalaya and the appellate court rejected the maintenance application, holding that the marriage and paternity had not been sufficiently proved.
Justice Gajendra Singh examined the evidence placed on record, including statements of several witnesses who supported Seemabai's claim that she had married the respondent and that the child was born from that relationship.
The court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit, observing that proceedings for maintenance do not require the same strict standard of proof as criminal trials for offences relating to marriage.
Quoting the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, the court noted that,
“If the claimant in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code succeeds in showing that she and the respondent have lived together as husband and wife, the Court can presume that they are legally wedded spouses.”
The High Court also took note of the respondent's opposition to a DNA fingerprinting test sought by the petitioners to establish the child's paternity.
“The respondent's refusal to undergo the DNA fingerprinting test shall be considered at the time of final adjudication,” the court observed while discussing the earlier proceedings.
The judge further found it significant that the respondent admitted knowing Seemabai and acknowledged that the child was her son, while offering no clear explanation regarding the child's parentage.
Holding that the lower courts had erred in denying maintenance, the High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside both earlier orders.
The court awarded maintenance of ₹5,000 per month each to Seemabai and her son, making the total monthly amount ₹10,000. The payment was directed to be made from the date of the original application.
The court further ordered that Seemabai's maintenance would continue until her remarriage, while the son's maintenance would continue until he attains majority.
Case Details:
Case Title: Seemabai & Others v. Basantilal
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 4517 of 2022
Judge: Justice Gajendra Singh
Decision Date: 20 May 2026
