CHALUMURI ROHIT NAIDU Vs. CHALUMURI RAMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions arise out of two different applications being I.A. No.122 of 2009 filed by the petitioner and LA. No.197 of 2009 filed by the respondent in O.P. No.1207 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam. Both the said applications were disposed of under separate impugned orders, both dated 12-5-2009. Hence, these revision petitions are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) PETITIONER, minor through his mother, in both revision petitions is the petitioner in O.P. No.1207 of 2008 filed against the respondent for maintenance. In the said OP, petitioner filed an application being LA. No.122 of 2009 seeking interim maintenance at Rs. 5,000/- per month and for payment of Rs. 18,260/- immediately towards his school fees. The respondent opposed the said application, inter alia, by contending that the respondent and the mother of the petitioner separated in their relationship, as husband and wife, 15 years ago and that there is no relationship between them from November 1993 onwards and when the petitioner was born, his mother is said to have admitted her guilt. Since November 1993, as there is no subsisting relationship or access and the respondent and mother of the petitioner are living separately, the paternity of the petitioner is seriously disputed by the respondent. He has even claimed that he is filing an appropriate application for conducting DNA test to determine the paternity of the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon a specific averment of the respondent that in the last 15 years, neither the petitioner nor his mother made any claim for maintenance and that the mother of the petitioner is working and both of them are residing in a house purchased by the respondent. He, therefore, submits that there is no warrant for the order of maintenance when the paternity of the petitioner is denied the respondent. He also supports the impugned order on the ground that as per the legal position now settled by a decision of this Court in Buridi Vanajalakshmi v. Buridi Venkata Satya Varaha Prasad Gangadhar Rao (1) 2010 (4) ALT 441, the impugned order in CRP No.4188 of 2009 sending the parties for DNA test does not warrant interference.