HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.6485/2007 and Crl.R.C.No.1811/2009 DT. 3-12-2010 Crl.P.No.6485/2007 M. Varaprasad @ M.V. Prasad …Petitioner V. 1. Madhu Bindu and another ..Respondents The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.6485/2007 and Crl.R.C.No.1811/2009 COMMON ORDER Since these two, criminal petition and revision case, are interconnected with each other and arise out of the same proceedings, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. Crl.P.No.6485/2007 is filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.680/2002 in MC No.125/2006 dt. 27-9-2007 on the file of Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of JHCBBC-cum-Addl. Family Court-cum-XXIII Addl. Chief Judge, Hyderabad, whereunder petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein under Sec.45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the petitioners and the respondent in Crl.M.P.No.680/2002 for DNA test for determination of paternity of Miss.M. Mounika. Crl.R.C.No.1811/2009 is filed by the petitioner-husband against the orders allowing MC No.125/2006 on the file of Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of JHCBBC-cum-Addl. Family Court-cum-XXIII Addl. Chief Judge, Hyderabad, filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein and awarding monthly maintenance at Rs.2500/- to the first petitioner and Rs.2000/- to the second petitioner, in MC, from 1-1-2007 apart from legal expenses of Rs.1500/-. After hearing the matter at length, Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions, while fairly conceding that the petitioner-husband is ready to subject himself to DNA test as directed by the trial court in Crl.M.P.No.680/2002, which is the subject matter of challenge in Crl.P.No.6485/2007, contended that the learned Judge is not justified in allowing MC without deciding the paternity of the child and relationship between the petitioner-husband and respondent No.1-wife. Admittedly, MC was allowed on the ground that the marriage of P.W.1 with the petitioner-husband has not been discredited by the petitioner-husband since he did not adduce either oral or documentary evidence and he has not agreed to undergo DNA test to determine the paternity of the respondent No.2 (Mounika), which clinches the issues and therefore, the conclusion can be drawn that the respondents are the wife and daughter of the petitioner herein. In view of the same, Crl.P.No.6485/2007 is dismissed directing the petitioner, as well as the respondents 1 and 2, to undergo DNA test as directed by the trial court in Crl.M.P.No. 680/2002. In view of dismissal of criminal petition, Crl.R.C.No.1811/2009 is also allowed setting aside the maintenance awarded in MC No.125/2006, subject to the payment of maintenance as ordered by this court on 23-2-2010, while admitting the criminal revision case till the disposal of MC. The trial court shall dispose of MC No.125/2006 on the basis of expert evidence after the parties undergoing DNA test, as early as possible. Crl.R.C.No.1811/2009 is accordingly allowed. --------------------- A.GOPAL REDDY,J DT.3-12-2010 Kmr