Telangana High Court
CRLP/10024/2009 of Maramreddy Ravindranath Reddy, Vs Maramreddy Vijaya Lakshmi , Vijaya Lakshmi, on 30 December 2010
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10024 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioner is husband of the 1st respondent and father of the minor 2nd respondent. The respondents 1 and 2 filed MC No.18 of 2004 on the file of First Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gurajala
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R:
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10024of2009
The petitioner is husband of the 1[st] respondent and father of the minor 2[nd]respondent. The respondents 1 and 2 filed MC No.18 of 2004 on the file of FirstAdditional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gurajala claiming maintenanceof Rs.1000/- each from the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Magistrateafter due enquiry, by order dated 18-12-2006 granted maintenance of Rs.1,000/-per month to the wife and Rs.500/- per month to the minor child. As against thesaid order, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P. No. 16 of 2007 on the file of X AdditionalSessions Judge (Fast Tract Court) Guntur at Narasaraopet. The AdditionalSessions Judge by Judgment dated 05-06-2009 confirmed the order passed bythe Magistrate. Questioning the said revisional order, the petitioner filed thiscriminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Virtually, this petition amounts tofiling of a second revision petition against a revisional order which is prohibitedunder Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.
2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the 1[st] respondent hasbeen living in adultery and that the 2[nd] respondent was not born to him. It isstated that the petitioner filed F.C.O.P No.493 of 2006 on the file of FamilyCourt, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad for divorce against the 1[st] respondent on theground of adultery and cruelty and that the said court by order dated 27-11-2006allowed that petition granting divorce on those two grounds. The said orderdated 27-11-2006 has not seen light of the day till now. It is neither filed beforethe Magistrate nor filed before the Additional Sessions Judge or filed before thiscourt in this petition. On the other hand, the respondents’ counsel contendedthat the order dated 27.11.2006 in F.C.O.P No. 493 of 2006 is an ex-parte orderobtained behind back of the 1[st] respondent and that the 1[st] respondent filed petition for setting aside the said ex-parte order along with delay condonationpetition and that those petitions are pending in that court. It is contended by thepetitioner’s counsel that even though, the petitioner came forward before the courts below for undergoing DNA test to show that he is not father of the 2[nd]respondent, the courts below did not take any steps in that regard. The orderpassed by the Magistrate reads that it was in fact, the 1[st] respondent/wife, whocame forward for DNA test for the baby and that the petitioner/husband did notcome forward for undergoing the test. Therefore, now it has not lie in the mouthof the petitioner to contend otherwise. Both the courts below after consideringthe evidence on record came to right conclusions on facts that the respondents1 and 2 are entitled for maintenance. I do not find any reasons to come to adifferent conclusion in this criminal petition.
3. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.
01-10-2010Mjl/*
____________________________
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J