JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. The instant criminal petition under Section 528 , Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is preferred to assail legality and validity of an Order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bongaigaon in Misc. Case no. 41/2024. 3. The prior events leading to passing of the Order dated 23.04.2025 in Misc. Case no. 41/2024 can be narrated at first, briefly. 4. The sole respondent impleaded herein as the informant had lodged a First Information Report [FIR] before the Officer In-Charge, Bongaigaon Police Station [Sadar] on 01.02.2023 alleging inter-alia to the effect that she worked in the chamber of the petitioner, who is a Doctor by profession. During the period when the informant was so working, physical relationship developed between them and the same lasted for about four years. The informant had alleged that the accused, that is, the petitioner made her to abort her pregnancy on two occasions. But on the third occasion when there was pregnancy, she managed to give birth to a child on 03.01.2023 at Bongaigaon Swagat Hospital by maintaining distance from the accused. But the accused denied paternity of the child so born. The informant further alleged that when she asked for maintenance of her child from the accused, she was threatened and maintenance was denied. 5. The said FIR was registered as Bongaigaon Police Station Case no. 41/2023 under Section 376[2][d]/493/506, INDIAN PENAL CODE [IPC] and the matter was investigated into. 6. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer [I.O.] of the case submitted a charge-sheet under Section 173[2], CrPC vide Charge-Sheet no. 17/06 on 30.06.2023 stating that sufficient incriminating materials were found against the accused for him to stand in trial for committing offences under Sections 376[2][d]/493/506, IPC. In the Charge-Sheet, the Investigating Officer [I.O.] further mentioned that during the course of investigation, the blood samples of the accused, the informant and the new born baby were collected and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory [FSL] for examination. The Report from the Forensic Science Laboratory [FSL] was collected and the case against the accused was found established on the basis of the FSL Report [DNA Report] and the evidence of other witnesses. The Report from the Forensic Science Laboratory [FSL] was collected and the case against the accused was found established on the basis of the FSL Report [DNA Report] and the evidence of other witnesses. The FSL Report [DNA Report] dated 12.05.2023 was forwarded by the Scientific Officer, DNA Typing Unit, Directorate of Forensic Science, Assam vide an Office Letter dated 17.05.2023 to the Additional Superintendent of Police [HQ], Bongaigaon, the authority who forwarded the blood samples for DNA profiling. The copy of the DNA Report is found annexed to the instant petition. 7. In this criminal petition, the petitioner has stated that it is on the basis of the DNA Report dated 12.05.2023, the respondent herein, that is, the informant in Bongaigaon Police Station Case no. 41/2023 has filed an application before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon [‘the Trial Court’, for short] under Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [ BNSS ], 2023 seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 25,000/- each for herself and for the minor child, who was born on 03.01.2023 and the impugned Order dated 23.04.2025 has been passed therein. 8. The said application under Section 144 , BNSS has been registered as Misc. Case no. 41/2024 and is presently pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bongaigaon [‘the Trial Court’, for short]. On institution of Misc. Case no. 41/2024, notice was sent to the petitioner for his appearance. Upon receipt of notice, the petitioner approached the Trial Court by a petition, Petition No. 367/24 on 22.11.2024 seeking dismissal of Misc. Case no. 41/2024. 9. The prime contention raised by the petitioner in Petition No. 367/2024 is that the first party in Misc. Case no. 41/2024 has made the DNA Report, collected during the course of investigation of Bongaigaon Police Station Case no. 41/2023, as the basis of her application seeking maintenance. The petitioner has pointed out that the said DNA Report is a part of the case records of Session Case no. 26/2024, the trial of which till then had not commenced. It is merely on the basis of the positive DNA Test Report, the application for maintenance has been filed. As the question of legality, validity and acceptability of the DNA Report has not yet been gone into by the Court of Sessions in Session Case no. 26/2024, the application submitted by the first party in Misc. Case no. It is merely on the basis of the positive DNA Test Report, the application for maintenance has been filed. As the question of legality, validity and acceptability of the DNA Report has not yet been gone into by the Court of Sessions in Session Case no. 26/2024, the application submitted by the first party in Misc. Case no. 41/2024 lacks merit and the application seeking maintenance is liable to be dismissed and rejected in limine. 10. The Trial Court has heard the parties on Petition No. 367/24. The Trial Court has considered the provisions contained in Section 125 [1][b], Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘the CrPC’ and/or ‘the Code’, for short] [presently, Section 144 [1][b], BNSS ] to observe that there is provision for maintenance to any legitimate or illegitimate child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself. The Trial Court has also relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sumitra Devi vs. Bhikan Choudhury, reported in [1985] 1 SCC 637, wherein it is held that even if the fact of marriage is discarded, an illegitimate minor child is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code. 11. The Trial Court has further observed that paternity is a relevant aspect to be established so as to enable the Court to direct the second party [the petitioner] to pay maintenance in favour of the illegitimate minor child, allegedly fathered by the second party [the petitioner]. Taking note of the fact that there is a DNA report in existence confirming the paternity of the second party [the petitioner] in respect of the child born from the womb of the first party [the respondent], the Trial Court has reached a considered opinion that the application for maintenance is maintainable as the first party [the respondent] has sought maintenance for herself and for her minor child. The Trial Court has considered the provisions contained in Section 125 [1][b], CrPC in the afore-stated manner and has observed so without going into the merits of the case. By the Order dated 23.04.2025, the Trial Court has rejected Petition no. 367/24. 12. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the Trial Court whereby the Petition no. 367/24, filed by the petitioner, has been rejected, the petitioner has approached this Court. 13. From a plain reading of the contents of the application submitted in Misc. Case no. 367/24. 12. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the Trial Court whereby the Petition no. 367/24, filed by the petitioner, has been rejected, the petitioner has approached this Court. 13. From a plain reading of the contents of the application submitted in Misc. Case no. 41/2024 and the Order dated 23.04.2025, it is evident that the DNA Report dated 12.05.2023, which is made part of the Charge-Sheet no. 17/06, has been made one of the basis for seeking maintenance under Section 125 [1] [b], CrPC [presently, Section 144 [1][b], BNSS ]. 14. The legality, validity and acceptability of the DNA Report is yet to be gone into. The legality, validity and acceptability of the DNA Report can be gone into only during the course of the proceedings of Misc. Case no. 41/2024. If the said DNA Report is made part of the evidence, it would remain open for the petitioner to question its legality, validity and acceptability by raising all the grounds permissible to him under law. As the Trial Court has observed that it is only a basis for seeking maintenance and has proceeded further without going into the merits of the DNA Report, there is no infirmity in the decision of the Trial Court to reject Petition no. 367/24 by the Order dated 23.04.2025 and to proceed further for adjudication of the application for maintenance registered as Misc. Case no. 41/2024. 15. As a result, the instant criminal petition is found to be devoid of merit. In such view of the matter, the criminal petition is not entertained and closed.