THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.913 of 2009 (Dated:27-08-2009) Between: Sarella Vara Prasad S/o China Narasimha Murthy ….petitioner A n d Sarella Bujji W/o Vara Prasad and another ….Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.913 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 19.3.2009 passed in Crl.M.P.No.243 of 2009 in M.C No.47 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku, whereby and whereunder, learned Principal Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/husband seeking permission to file an additional counter in M.C.No.47 of 2007. The 1st respondent herein is the wife and the 2nd respondent is the daughter of the petitioner herein. The wife and the daughter filed M.C.47 of 2007 under Section 125 Cr.P.C seeking maintenance. The petitioner-husband herein filed counter resisting the claim of the wife and the daughter. In the counter filed by him, he admits the factum of marriage and the birth of the child. He filed Crl.M.P.No.243 of 2009 seeking permission to file an additional counter affidavit. In the proposed additional counter, the petitioner-husband disputes the very validity of the marriage and the birth of the child out of the wedlock. He went to the extent of imputing unchastity to the wife and disputing paternity of the child. The learned Prl. Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record, and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the application filed by the husband to receive additional counter, by an order dated 19.3.2009. The said order is assailed in this revision. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 10.6.2009. In response, respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance through a counsel. When the revision came up for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/husband intends to put on record some additional pleas to resist the claim made by the wife and the child. A further submission has been made that no prejudice would be caused to the wife and the child in permitting the petitioner-husband to place on record the additional pleas. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the trial Court considered the material brought on record in a right perspective and proceeded to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner- husband and therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate is not liable to be interfered with in this revision. I have gone through the order impugned in the revision. The learned Junior Civil Judge extracted the pleas taken by the petitioner-husband in the original counter and also the additional counter. In the original counter, the petitioner-husband did not dispute the factum of marriage and the birth of the child. While coming to the additional counter, which he proposes to file, he went to the extent of disputing the validity of the marriage and the paternity of the child. The pleas taken by the petitioner in the additional counter are very much prejudicial to the wife and the child. Therefore, the learned Junior Civil Judge is justified in dismissing the application. In the circumstances, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 397 or 401 Cr.P.C. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed. ____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 27th August 2009 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.913 of 2009 DATED : 27-08-2009