THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3354 OF 2010 ORDER: Husband of the second respondent and father of respondents 3 and 4 is the petitioner herein. He is questioning grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 {Cr.P.C.} to the respondents 2 to 4 in M.C.No.14 of 2002 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kothavalasa, as confirmed in Crl.R.P.No.13 of 2006 by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. There is no dispute in regard to marriage of the petitioner with the second respondent. After marriage, it is stated that the second respondent lived with the petitioner for few days and later, left his company. It is contended that after the second respondent left company of the petitioner, there was no access between them and that therefore, the respondents 3 and 4 are not legitimate children of the petitioner. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that both the Courts below did not consider non-access of the petitioner with the second respondent during the period when respondents 3 and 4 were born, even though the petitioner let in evidence on this aspect. The question of accessibility or non-accessibility between the petitioner and the second respondent is one of fact, which has to be determined by the Court basing on evidence let in by both the parties. Both the parties have let in their evidence in the Magistrate Court. P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined on behalf of the claimants and R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined on behalf of the petitioner herein. After considering oral evidence let in by both the parties, both the Courts below came to the conclusion that children born to the second respondent are legitimate children of the second respondent and the petitioner. In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., that question of fact cannot be assailed. I do not find any merits in this petition. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ____________________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J) 16th April 2010 RRB