HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.P.No. 5234 of 2007 Date: 21-04-2010 Between: Maddala Siva Satyanarayana ……….. Petitioner and Maddala Gowthan Rama Murthy Naidu and another ………. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.P.No. 5234 of 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed to set aside the order, dated 21-03-2007 in Crl.R.P.no.105 of 2006 on the file of the III Additional District Judge (FTC), Bhimavaram. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the DNA test is not the conclusive proof and that the petitioner discontinued education and he has no means to pay the maintenance amount and that he was a convict in S.C.No.10 of 2006, wherein he was directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-, out of which an amount of Rs.25,000/- was awarded to the first respondent herein, who is represented by the natural guardian, and therefore, no further maintenance is required to be paid. It is also submitted that the amount of Rs.1,000/- awarded by the trial Court is also excessive and the petitioner cannot pay the same. The first respondent herein is a minor aged about two years represented his mother, natural guardian. He filed M.C.No.51 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District seeking maintenance from the petitioner. The petitioner herein disputed his relationship with the first respondent. The DNA test was conducted and it was opined in Ex.P-1, Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, that the DNA profiles obtained from the first respondent, his mother and the petitioner when compared established that the petitioner is the biological father of the first respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner did not choose or come forward to have a second opinion by undergoing another test. DNA profile test appears to be an advanced one based on scientific analysis. Unless it is established that the report of the DNA profile is totally incorrect, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate was not justified in relying on the same. As far as the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner is unable to pay maintenance of Rs.1,000/- is concerned, I am of the view that Rs.1,000/- per month nowadays appears to be a meager amount and the petitioner being a well educated person, who studied MBA, of course said to have discontinued his education, cannot say that he has no capacity to pay the maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to the first respondent herein. Any person with able body cannot say that he has no capacity to pay the maintenance amount to his minor children. Even if the other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the first respondent in pursuance of the order in the Sessions Case is accepted as true, there is nothing on record to say that the said amount was paid as lumsum towards the maintenance of the minor child. Even otherwise Rs.25,000/- cannot fetch the interest of at least Rs.1,000/- per month. Merely on the ground that an amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid as compensation, that cannot be a valid ground to set aside the order of maintenance. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merits in this Criminal Petition and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 21-04-2010 YCR