K KAMALADEVI Vs. KAMMALA KUMARA SEKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a rather unusual and peculiar case arising under Section 125 Cr.P.C. where the first respondent eventhough denied his paternity to the petitioner herein, contending that he did not fathered her, has instituted the proceedings in M.C.No.43 of 1991 on the file of the Court of II Addl. Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Eluru, claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month.

(2.) Miss C. Rohini, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the maintenance case filed by the first respondent is clear abuse of process of law, inasmuch as the first respondent even while pleading that he did not father the petitioner, has instituted the proceedings only as a counter-blast to the plea taken by the petitioner's mother earlier that the first respondent had married her as his second wife and begot the petitioner.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr, J. Prabhakar, learned Counsel for the first respondent, very vehemently contended that the petitioner's mother had admitted that his client has fathered the petitioner and that the petitioner had also admitted in the counter, she was liable to pay maintenance.