KATRAVATH BICHYA NAIK Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the order, dated 12.09.2018, passed in Crl.M.P.No.507 of 2018 in M.C.No.14 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Achampet, wherein an application filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act to direct the revision petitioner herein to undergo D.N.A. Test, along with respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, for determining the paternity of respondent No.3, was allowed.

(2.) As seen from the record, respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, who are wife and daughter of the revision petitioner, filed M.C.No.14 of 2015 seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each from the revision petitioner. During pendency of the said M.C., respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein filed Crl.M.P.No.507 of 2018 under Section 45 of Evidence Act to direct the revision petitioner herein to undergo D.N.A. Test along with respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, before the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Hyderabad or any other approved scientific institutions to determine the paternity of respondent No.3 herein. The averments in the said petition disclose that the marriage between the revision petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein was solemnized about 21 years back at Srisailam of Kurnool District, they led conjugal life and were blessed with two daughters namely Swetha and Himabindu, out of whom, their elder daughter Swetha got married after attaining majority. Thereafter, the revision petitioner and his relatives started harassing the 2nd respondent physically and mentally; neglected to maintain her and her daughter. Hence, she along with her daughter filed the above Maintenance Case. The revision petitioner filed a Counter denying his relationship with the 2nd respondent/wife and also his paternity with the 3rd respondent/daughter. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent/wife has no documentary evidence to show their relationship with the revision petitioner/husband as the same was denied by the revision petitioner even in his evidence. Therefore, there is no other option except to file this petition seeking to direct the revision petitioner to undergo D.N.A. Test along with respondents 2 and 3 before the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory.

(3.) A Counter-affidavit came to be filed by the revision petitioner/husband denying his relationship with that of the respondents 2 and 3 herein. Since the 2nd respondent herself admitted that she has no material evidence or any document to establish about the relationship with the revision petitioner including paternity of the 3rd respondent, the present petition filed by respondents 2 and 3 herein is not maintainable in law on the ground that the image of the revision petitioner will be tarnished if he is directed for DNA Test. It is further stated that in our Country any institute or agency can be managed to get favourable report. It is further submitted that to get a child, biological contact or physical contact is not required. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent had admitted that she did not file any documents to prove the marriage between herself and the revision petitioner. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent married one Katravath Jodya in 1990 and thereafter she married one Nenavath Shankar, R/o. Brahmanapally in the year 1994, without obtaining divorce from the said Katravath Jodya, which would suffice the contention of the revision petitioner that he is not having any kind of relationship whatsoever with respondents 2 and 3.