KAMARATHI SREEMURTHY Vs. KAMARATHI RAJESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two criminal petitions - Crl.P.No.2694 and 2695 of 2005 are filed against the common order passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, at Nandyal in Crl.R.P.Nos. 19 and 22 of 2005, respectively. The parties herein Would be referred to us they are arrayed before the trial Court.

(2.) The facts of the case are: First petitioner, Kamarthi Rajeswari and the second petitioner, Kamarthi Jyothi have filed M.C.No. 5 of 2004 under section 125 Cr.P.C, against the respondent claiming maintenance. During the pendency of maintenance proceedings, the respondent/husband filed Crl.P.No. 849 of 2005 under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the second petitioner for DNA test for ascertaining her parentage contending that he is an impotent and the second petitioner is not born to him. He also filed Crl.M.P.No. 1469 of 2004 under section 311 Cr.P.C, to summon the Doctor by name, P. Srinivasulu, to prove that he (the respondent) is impotent. Both the petitions are dismissed by the learned Magistrate and against the order in CrlM.P.No.849 of 2005 the respondent filed Crl.K.P.No. 19 of 2005 and Crl.R.P.No.22 of 2005 against the order in Crl.M.P.No. 1469 of 2004 before the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that the first petitioner was married to the respondent on 8-1-1993 at Anjaneyaswamy Temple, near RTC Busstand, Nandyal, as per Hindu rites and customs. They lived happily for some time and during their wedlock the second petitioner was born. Later the respondent ill-treated and neglected the petitioners and therefore, they initiated maintenance proceedings. The respondent refuted the claim of the petitioners contending that the first petitioner never lived with him; that he is impotent and that the second petitioner did not born to him,. After PW-1 was examined, the respondent filed criminal petitions, as referred to above.