THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1408 OF 2010 ORDER: 1 Petitioner is the husband of respondent No. 2 and father of Respondent No.3 and this revision is directed against the order dated 06.05.2010 in M.P.No.2142 of 2009 in M.C.No.8 of 2003 on the file of the court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikalahasthi whereby the petition filed under section 127 of Cr.P.C. to cancel the order passed in M.C.No.8 of 2003 was dismissed. 2 Brief facts are that the respondents claiming to be the wife and child of the petitioner herein filed M.C.No.8 of 2003 claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- p.m. Having considered the evidence, which was brought on record, the trial court gave a finding that the third respondent is the child of the petitioner born out of their wedlock and awarded Rs.500/- p.m. towards her maintenance. As stated supra, an application was filed under section 127 (2) of Cr.P.C. stating that the third respondent is not the legitimate child of the petitioner and as such the said award passed in M.C.No.8 of 2003 is liable to be cancelled and the same is rejected. 3 On notice, the respondents have put in their appearance. 4 The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the civil court has given a categorical finding that the third respondent herein is not born out of their wedlock and in that context the counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the judgment in O.S.No.366 of 2003 on the file of the court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi. 5 This court is unable to go into the said contention for the reason that the said orders passed in M.C.No.8 of 2003 have become final. In fact, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that questioning the said order passed in M.C.No.8 of 2003 the petitioner approached this court and filed a revision and the same was dismissed. 6 The marriage between the petitioner and the second respondent herein is not in dispute. In fact, in the said main M.C. because of the stand taken by the petitioner an issue also was framed to the effect that whether the third respondent herein is the legitimate child born through the second respondent to the petitioner and the court below answered it affirmatively. May be it is true that a civil court has given a finding, but as per the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner the matter is carried by way of an appeal and the matter is pending before the District Court. 7 From a perusal of the order in M.C.No.8 of 2003 this court is of the view that a detailed discussion has been made by the learned Magistrate in holding that the third respondent herein is the child born to the petitioner through the second respondent herein and the same in my considered view needs no interference. 8 Accordingly I see no merits in this revision and accordingly the same is thus dismissed. ----------------- Sri T.G.K, J. 18.02.2011 Kvsn