The respondents herein filed O.S.No.213 of 2010 against the petitioner in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. They pleaded that the petitioner is their father, and in spite of repeated requests made by them, he did not effect partition of the suit schedule properties. The petitioner filed a written-statement, opposing the suit. He disputed his relationship with the respondents. According to him, he married the mother of the petitioners, by name, Ramakotamma, but within few years after the marriage, they started living separately, and that he is not the father of the respondents.

2. The petitioner filed I.A.No.849 of 2012, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, with a prayer to send the blood samples of himself and respondents to a laboratory, to determine the parentage of the respondents. The application was opposed by the respondents. They pleaded that M.C.No.23 of 1995 was filed by them and their mother, in the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, against the petitioner, and though similar plea, which is raised now; was taken in the M.C also, the trial Court rejected the same. They pleaded that M.C.No.23 of 1995 was allowed on 27-03-1996, and that the order passed therein became final.

3. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 10-07-2013. Hence, this revision.

4. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner went in illatam to the house of his parents-in-law, and on finding that the atmosphere is not congenial there, returned to the parental home, within a short time. He contends that the petitioner was sure that he is not the father of the respondents, and to establish that, he filed the present application. Learned counsel submits that the finding recorded in the M.C., filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., cannot be treated as final, since the proceedings therein are summary in nature, and that the trial Court was not justified in dismissing the application, particularly when the 1st respondent herein as PW-1, stated that he has no objection for sending the blood samples to a laboratory.

5. Sri K.S. Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner raised a totally objectionable plea, telling upon the very status of the respondents, with an oblique motive to deprive them of the share in the joint family properties. He contends that the petitioner raised similar plea in the M.C.No.23 of 1995, and after thorough discussion, the trial Court therein repelled that contention and allowed the M.C. He submits that the maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. can be awarded against a person only in favour of his wife, or children and the very fact that the maintenance was ordered in favour of the respondents discloses that the petitioner was found to be their father. Learned counsel submits that the contention of the petitioner that the proceedings in maintenance case are summary in nature, is not correct.

6. The respondents herein, claiming to be the son and daughter of the petitioner; filed the suit for partition. The petitioner does not dispute that he married the mother of the respondents. However, his case is that he is not the father of the respondents. It is a serious allegation, and if accepted, would bastardize the respondents. Therefore, the foundation of such a plea must be strong, and the Court cannot permit it to be taken, unless it is fairly acceptable.

7. In case the occasion to raise the plea has arisen for the first time in the present suit, and the petitioner has raised it, it would have certainly needed adequate attention of the Court. That, however, is not the case. Way back in the year 1995, the respondents and their mother filed M.C.No.23 of 1995 in the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner raised the same plea, as in the present suit, about