Criminal Revision Case No. 2196 of 2010. Case: Madharapu Prashu Ram, S/o. Seetha Ramulu, Employee, R/o. Sarwaram Village of Garidepally Mandal, Nalgonda District Vs Shaik Janibhee, W/o. Parashu Ram, Household, R/o. Sarwaram Village of Garidepally Mandal, Nalgonda District, Madharapu Tulasi, D/o. Madharapu Parashuram, Care and Custody of Guardian Mother Shaik Janibee @ M. Janaki and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Revision Case No. 2196 of 2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy and For Respondents: Sri J. Prabhakar, Counsel for Respondent No. 1 & 2, Public Prosecutor Counsel for Respondent No. 3 |
| Judges | Sri K.S. Appa Rao, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 125 (1), 125(1); Constitution of India - Articles 20(3), 21; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 45 |
| Citation | 2013 CriLJ 1077 |
| Judgement Date | June 12, 2012 |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India) |
Order:
Sri K.S. Appa Rao, J.
-
Aggrieved by the orders dated 22-9-2010 passed in Criminal M. P. No. 2756 of 2010 in M. C. No. 10 of 2010 on the file of Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurnagar, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.
-
The petitioner herein is the alleged husband of the first respondent and the father of the second respondent. For convenience sake, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the lower Court. The petitioners filed M. C. No. 10 of 2010 under Section 125 (1), Cr. P. C. claiming maintenance against the respondent.
-
According to the averments in the petition, the first petitioner is wife and the second petitioner is the daughter of the respondent. The respondent in the month of December, 2005, asked the first petitioner to marry him. Since the respondent already having wife and children, the first petitioner refused to marry him. The respondent said that he is having Ac. 6.00 wetland and out of same, he gave Ac. 3.00 to wife and divorced her, and he is prepared to give the remaining Ac. 3.00 to the first petitioner if she agrees to marry him. Accordingly, the respondent convinced the first petitioner to marry him by executing a document on plain papers alienating Ac. 3.00 wetland in favour of first petitioner and finally married her in the house of her parents at Sarwaram Village. During their wedlock, they were blessed with the second petitioner and thereafter, differences arose in between them. Petitioners also filed photographs showing the scheme applied under girl-child protection to the District Collector, Nalgonda. But, during the pendency of the proceedings in MC, the respondent disputed the marriage with the first petitioner and denied the relationship with the petitioners. The first petitioner filed a petition claiming interim maintenance under Section 125(1) of Cr. P. C. Thereafter, she also filed a petition in Crl. M. P. No. 2756 of 2010 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, requesting to refer both parties for scientific examination i.e., DNA test for proving that the second petitioner is the child of the first petitioner and respondent. The Trial Court, after due enquiry, allowed the said petition through the impugned order referring the petitioners and respondent for DNA test. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.
-
The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner-husband mainly argued that there is no relationship...
To continue reading
Request your trial