HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE 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 claiming maintenance of Rs.1000/- each from the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate after 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 the said order, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P. No. 16 of 2007 on the file of X Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court) Guntur at Narasaraopet. The Additional Sessions Judge by Judgment dated 05-06-2009 confirmed the order passed by the Magistrate. Questioning the said revisional order, the petitioner filed this criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Virtually, this petition amounts to filing of a second revision petition against a revisional order which is prohibited under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the 1st respondent has been living in adultery and that the 2nd respondent was not born to him. It is stated that the petitioner filed F.C.O.P No.493 of 2006 on the file of Family Court, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad for divorce against the 1st respondent on the ground of adultery and cruelty and that the said court by order dated 27-11-2006 allowed that petition granting divorce on those two grounds. The said order dated 27-11-2006 has not seen light of the day till now. It is neither filed before the Magistrate nor filed before the Additional Sessions Judge or filed before this court in this petition. On the other hand, the respondents’ counsel contended that the order dated 27.11.2006 in F.C.O.P No. 493 of 2006 is an ex-parte order obtained behind back of the 1st respondent and that the 1st respondent filed petition for setting aside the said ex-parte order along with delay condonation petition and that those petitions are pending in that court. It is contended by the petitioner’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 2nd respondent, the courts below did not take any steps in that regard. The order passed by the Magistrate reads that it was in fact, the 1st respondent/wife, who came forward for DNA test for the baby and that the petitioner/husband did not come forward for undergoing the test. Therefore, now it has not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to contend otherwise. Both the courts below after considering the evidence on record came to right conclusions on facts that the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled for maintenance. I do not find any reasons to come to a different conclusion in this criminal petition. 3. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 01-10-2010 Mjl/*