IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1179 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Mothukuri Siva Kumar @ Chitti Babu …. Petitioner AND Mothukuri Narayanamma and others …. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1179 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is sought to be filed by the father against revisional order passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Khammam at Kothagudem in Criminal R.P. No.20 of 2007 by which the revision was partly allowed granting maintenance of Rs.800/- per month to the second respondent / minor son. The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Manuguru in M.C. No.11 of 2006 by order dated 13-03-2007 rejected the claim for maintenance by the respondents 1 and 2 in toto. Apart from granting maintenance, the Additional Sessions Judge granted costs of Rs.15,000/- throughout. 2. As the position now stands, there cannot be dispute with regard to finding of facts arrived at by the lower Courts. The first respondent married a person, but the said husband, after developing contacts with another woman, went away from the first respondent. Subsequently, the petitioner developed relationship with the first respondent and lived together as man and wife. During that period, the second respondent was born to the first respondent through the petitioner. DNA report relating to paternity of the second respondent is in favour of the minor second respondent to the effect that he is biological son of the petitioner. Apart from the said evidence, irrespective of its relevance in law, there is evidence of PW-1, who is the first respondent, and PW-2, who is the mother of PW-1 and also PW-3 with regard to the petitioner and the first respondent living together as man and wife, during which period the second respondent was born. In spite of it, marriage of the first respondent with her original husband was subsisting as none of them applied for much less obtained divorce with the other. 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that since marriage between the first respondent and her original husband is subsisting, the second respondent can be illegitimate child of the first respondent’s husband and not that of the petitioner. When there is no parentage of the first respondent’s original husband, the second respondent is neither a legitimate child nor an illegitimate child of the first respondent’s original husband. He is the illegitimate child of the petitioner through the first respondent. Since parentage of the petitioner with reference to the second respondent is proved, the second respondent is entitled for maintenance from the petitioner. Small sum of Rs.800/- per month was awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge to the minor second respondent. I do not find any valid reasons to interfere with quantum of maintenance granted by that Court to the minor second respondent. 4. Insofar as costs are concerned, it is left to discretion of the Court, which granted the same. Such discretionary awarding of costs by the Court below cannot be interfered in this revision petition. Even though the petitioner lived with the first respondent, during which time the second respondent was born, the petitioner went to the extent of denying his parentage of the second respondent. The respondents are put to great expenses by obtaining DNA report also. Having regard to the circumstances, awarding of costs of Rs.15,000/- is in no way excessive. 5. Apart from merits, this second revision petition against revisional order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is not maintainable. 6. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU June 23, 2010 KTL