DAVULURI VINOD Vs. D.LAXMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Smt. B. Rachna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Mohd. Baseer Riyaz, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri D. Narendar Naik, learned counsel for 1st respondent.

(2.) Petitioner is the husband of 1st respondent and father of 2nd respondent. There are disputes between the petitioner and 1st respondent. 1st respondent has filed a petition under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights. The same was dismissed. Thereupon, he filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage and the same was allowed. According to the petitioner, he has been paying maintenance to both the respondents. In proof of the same, he has filed a statement. Even then, respondents filed a petition under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. vide F.C.M.C.No.12 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, against the petitioner claiming maintenance from him. During pendency of the said F.C.M.C., from 6/1/2025 onwards, his daughter, 2nd respondent, came to him voluntarily and staying with him. He is providing education and other facilities to her. In order to prove the aforesaid aspects, he has filed a petition vide Crl.M.P.No.93 of 2025 in F.C.M.C.No.12 of 2019 under Order XVI Rules 1 and 14 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to permit him to produce 2nd respondent, minor, as a witness to give her evidence in the aforesaid F.C.M.C.

(3.) In the said Crl.M.P., 1st respondent herein has filed a counter contending that as the aforesaid F.C.M.C. is filed under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C., there is no need to produce 2nd respondent as a witness for giving evidence. Moreover, she is aged about 13 years and is studying 8th class. Therefore, her evidence is not required.