ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (‘Cr.P.C.’ in short), by the petitioner, who is the respondent in Criminal M.P.No.11 of 2017 in Criminal Revision Petition No.49 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle, feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 15.05.2017 passed therein referring the petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2 for scientific examination i.e. DNA test to find out paternity of the 2nd respondent.

2. The petitioner herein is the alleged husband of the 1st respondent and the father of the 2nd respondent.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed maintenance case vide M.C.No.33 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the learned Special Magistrate, Madanapalle against the petitioner herein claiming maintenance. According to the averments in the petition, the 1st respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and their marriage was performed on 23.10.2010 and out of the wedlock they were blessed with the 2nd respondent and thereafter, the petitioner and his family members ill treated her demanding additional dowry. The petitioner filed Ex.P1 delivery certificate, Ex.P2-agreement and Ex.X1-case sheet to substantiate her marriage with the petitioner and birth of the 2nd respondent out of lawful wedlock. The petitioner filed counter denying his marriage with the 1st respondent and paternity of the 2nd respondent. The learned Special Magistrate considering the material dismissed the petition holding that the 1st respondent failed to even prima facie prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and there is no evidence to show that the 2nd respondent was born through the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents 1 and 2 preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.49 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle. Pending disposal of the above Crl.R.P., the respondents 1 and 2 filed Criminal M.P.No.11 of 2017 under Section 391 CrPC to send the petitioner herein for DNA test for proving paternity of the 2nd respondent. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the petition on 15.05.2017 directing the petitioner to undergo DNA test along with the respondents 1 and 2. The said order is impugned in this Criminal Revision Case.

4. The contentions raised by the petitioner in this Criminal Revision Case, in brief, are that the impugned order is bad, perverse and contrary to the settled principles of law and the same was passed in a routine manner even though there is no prima facie material showing existence of any relationship between the petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2 and that too when the marriage of the 1st respondent with another person was admitted and is subsisting. Hence, prayed to allow the Criminal Revision Case by setting aside the impugned order.

5. Heard Sri M.V. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the Criminal Revision Petitioner, Sri V.Chandran, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Soora Venkata Sai Nath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 3rd respondent-State.

6. Sri M.V. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for revision petitioner, in elaboration, would submit that the 1st respondent has failed even to place prima facie material on record to substantiate her marriage with the petitioner and even without any prima facie material, the Court below erred in directing the petitioner to under DNA test ignoring the fundamental principle of law that DNA test is not to be directed as a matter of routine and that it adversely affects the privacy of an individual. It is further submitted that the admissions made by the 1st respondent in Ex.R1 copy of the complaint filed by her before the District Women and Child Welfare Authority, Chittoor (relevant portion is marked as Ex.R3) makes it clear that she married one Malreddygari Nagamuni Reddy, a native of Kadapa district, and their marriage still subsists, but the Court bel