MADHARAPU PRASHU RAM Vs. SHAIK JANIBHEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the orders dated 22.09.2010 passed in Criminal M.P. No. 2756 of 2010 in M.C. No. 10 of 2010 on the file of Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzumagar, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. The petitioner herein is the alleged husband of the first respondent and the father of the second respondent. For convenience sake, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the lower Court. The petitioners filed M.C. No. 10 of 2010 under Section 125 (1) Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance against the respondent.

(2.) According to the averments in the petition, the first petitioner is wife and the second petitioner is the daughter of the respondent. The respondent in the month of December 2005, asked the first petitioner to marry him. Since the respondent already having wife and children, the first petitioner refused to marry him. The respondent said that he is having Ac. 6.00 wet land and out of same, he gave Ac. 3.00 to his wife and divorced her, and he is prepared to give the remaining Ac. 3.00 to the first petitioner if she agrees to marry him. Accordingly, the respondent convinced the first petitioner to marry him by executing a document on plain papers alienating Ac. 3.00 wetland in favour of first petitioner and finally married her in the house of her parents at Sarwaram Village. During their wedlock, they were blessed with the second petitioner and thereafter, differences arose in between them. Petitioners also filed photographs showing the scheme applied under girl-child protection to the District Collector, Nalgonda. But, during the pendency of the proceedings in MC, the respondent disputed the marriage with the first petitioner and denied the relationship with the petitioners. The first petitioner filed a petition claiming interim maintenance under Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, she also filed a petition in Crl.M.P. No. 2756 of 2010 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, requesting to refer both parties for scientific examination i.e., DNA test for proving that the second petitioner is the child of the first petitioner and respondent. The Trial Court, after due enquiry, allowed the said petition through the impugned order referring the petitioners and respondent for DNA test. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner-husband mainly argued that there is no relationship between the petitioners and the respondent and the respondent has not married the first petitioner and he is not aware of the second petitioner and the photographs filed by the first petitioner are only concocted. It is also his further contention that the first petitioner might have begot the second petitioner through her first husband and that the respondent has no relationship with them and denied the paternity of the second petitioner. He also further argued that referring the parties in matrimonial cases for DNA test was many times found fault by the Supreme Court and in support of his argument placed reliance on the decision reported in THOGORANI @ K. DAMAYANTI VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS,2004 2 ALT 22, wherein the Supreme Court observed that "taking blood sample of the accused-opposite party No. 3, in the instant case, will not amount to the accused becoming a witness against himself and thus a direction if issued to collect blood sample from the accused-opposite party No. 3 conducting DNA test would not in any way take away his rights enjoyed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution".