MOTHUKURI SHIVAKUMAR Vs. MOTHUKURI NARAYANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision case filed by the respondent in M. C. No. 11 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem.

(2.) THE respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the said maintenance case under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance of Rs. 800/-to the first respondent and Rs. 300/- to the second respondent. The revision petitioner denied the marriage with the first respondent and the paternity of the child. In the counter filed by the revision petitioner in the M. C. , he alleged that the first respondent herein married one, Datla Narayana Reddy of mallampeta Village when she was 15 years old. He denied that the first respondent on coming to know that the said Narayana Reddy was already married, left him forever. The revision petitioner might have participated in annaprasana programme after 27 days of birth of the second respondent, but it was only due to courtesy, but much importance cannot be attached for his alleged participation. The photographs of his attending the function does not confirm any right to the respondents to get maintenance from him. It was further alleged that the revision petitioner never married first respondent and the marriage of the first respondent performed with Datla Narayana Reddy is a valid marriage and it was not dissolved. During the subsistence of the marriage of the first respondent with Narayana Reddy, they blessed with the second respondent. The first respondent entered the name of Narayana Reddy in all government records as her husband including the voters' list.

(3.) THE lower Court, after considering the evidence adduced by both parties, dismissed the maintenance case holding that the marriage of the first respondent with the revision petitioner is null and void and the first respondent failed to prove that the second respondent was borne to her through the revision petitioner. Aggrieved by the order, the respondents 1 and 2 preferred Crl. R. P. No. 20 of 2007 before the V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Khammam at kothagudem. During the pendency of the revision petition, the respondents 1 and 2 herein filed Criminal M. P. No. 18 of 2008 under Section 45 of the Indian evidence Act to refer them and the revision petitioner to DNA test for proving that the second respondent was born to the first respondent through the revision petitioner. The revision Court allowed the petition with a view to settle the dispute between the parties once for all regarding the paternity of the child after referring to case law placed by both parties. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision case has been filed by the respondent in M. C. No. 11 of 2006.