IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.24 of 2010 DATE:17.08.2010 Between: Sipana Govinda Raju …… Petitioner And: Sipana Kumari and 2 others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.24 of 2010 ORDER : This revision petition is filed questioning order dated 29.07.2009 passed by the Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam in M.C. No.207 of 2006 granting maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent/minor child under Section 125 Cr.P.C on the ground that he is illegitimate child of the petitioner born through the deceased 1st respondent. Even though the respondents 1 and 2 filed the petition for maintenance in the lower Court, unfortunately the 1st respondent died even when the proceedings have been pending in the lower Court. The lower Court came to the conclusion that the deceased/1st respondent was not legally wedded wife of the petitioner and that therefore the 2nd respondent is not legitimate child of the petitioner. The question is whether the 2nd respondent is the child of the petitioner or not. Irrespective of status of legitimacy or illegitimacy, the 2nd respondent is entitled for maintenance from the petitioner in case there is parentage between him and the petitioner. 2) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the lower Court awarded maintenance to the 2nd respondent on surmises and conjectures and on the basis of some monetary transactions between them. Previously the 1st respondent filed M.C. No.57 of 2001 against the petitioner claiming maintenance from him under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The said M.C. No.57 of 2001 was dismissed for default on 17.09.2001. The lower Court based its conclusion on the subsequent lending of Rs.20,000/- by the petitioner to the 1st respondent on 24.08.2004 in spite of the 1st respondent’s threat to the petitioner to the effect that she is wife of the petitioner. There was no reason for the petitioner to lend Rs.20,000/- to the 1st respondent, particularly when she filed a maintenance case against the petitioner previously. From this circumstance, the lower Court deduced that there is some relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent though not marital relationship. It lead the lower Court to the conclusion that the deceased/1st respondent was living with the petitioner and delivered the 2nd respondent. Apart from the said circumstance, there is evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 to prove living of the petitioner and the 1st respondent and delivery of the 2nd respondent by the 1st respondent during that period of living. On cumulative reading of the entire material on record, this Court is of the opinion that the lower Court rightly came to the conclusion that the 2nd respondent is the illegitimate child of the petitioner from whom he can claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 3) In spite of denying paternity, the petitioner did not take any steps in the lower Court to establish lack of paternal bondage for him with the 2nd respondent through D.N.A test. After all, the contesting person is a minor child. No Court can expect a minor child to take such steps for D.N.A test. In all fairness, the petitioner should have taken such steps before the lower Court. For obvious reasons, the petitioner did not take such steps in the lower Court. Therefore, this Court is also of the opinion that the 2nd respondent is the illegitimate child of the petitioner. 4) With regard to the quantum of maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month is concerned, the petitioner is having sufficient means to pay the said amount to the minor child. According to the respondents, the petitioner was working as seaman and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month by doing finance business and is also getting rent of Rs.1,00,000/- per month for his shopping complex. Though the said figures are astronomical and exaggerated, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has got abundant means to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the minor child. I do not find any valid reasons to interfere with the order passed by the lower Court. 5) In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 17, 2010 KSH