JUDGMENT :

SURINDER SINGH, J.

1. By means of the present petition, preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-husband has assailed the order dated 30.6.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu in Revision Petition No. 28 of 2005 whereby the revision petition, filed by the petitioner herein, against the order of maintenance dated 24.9.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, was dismissed.

2. The facts of the case, which have given rise to this petition, can be summarized as follows:

(a) the respondent-wife alleged her marriage with the petitioner having been solemnized on 19.5.1994, as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies.

(b) during this wedlock respondent-wife gave birth to a female child named Champa (respondent No. 2).

(c) petitioner-husband is a T-mate in the Electricity Department, posted at Kullu.

(d) the respondent alleged that her husband expected a male issue but after giving birth a female child in March, 1995, he became indifferent and started maltreating her.

(e) It was also alleged that her husband wanted a piece of land from her father, at Kullu to construct the house and start small scale industry but when the matter did not materialize, she along with her child was turned out finally on 24.4.1996 after giving beatings to her and ultimately she took refuse into the house of her parents.

(f) the petitioner-husband filed a petition, under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act Ex.PW1/A before the learned Senior Sub Judge, Mandi, duly supported by the affidavit Ex.PW1/B for restitution of conjugal rights. He had admitted therein that both the parties remained as husband and wife after their marriage and respondent gave birth to a female child and she withdrew from his company in September, 1997. On 1.5.1998 he withdrew the petition vide his statement Ex.PW1/C.

(g) the respondent-wife alleged neglect and refusal thus sought maintenance for herself and the child.

3. In his reply, the petitioner-husband denied the relationship of wife and husband and he also denied the paternity of the minor child. He averred that he never married the respondent at any point of time and he was also not employed in the H.P.S.E.B Department at Kullu. He did not make any request for transfer of the land, as alleged. According to him, the respondent-wife had concocted a false story. He even denied his earning - salary to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- per month. Though he admitted that a petition, under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was preferred by him in the court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Mandi, but according to him, his counsel had filed a petition against his advise which was later on withdrawn.

4. Both the parties led their evidence. During the course of trial, the respondent moved an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for DNA test of the child which was dismissed and he unsuccessfully assailed it in Cr. Revision No. 39/2004, before the learned Sessions Judge, which was further challenged by him in Cr. M.M.O. No. 11 of 2005, which was finally disposed of by the then Chief Justice, by passing the following order:

“After arguing for a while, learned counsel seeks leave of this court to withdraw the petition with liberty to urge in the appeal that the petitioner may file before the appellate court against the order passed under section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure by the Magistrate (if such an order is passed against the petitioner) all the grounds available to the petitioner under the law, including the ground that the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge had wrongly rejected the petitioner’s application for DNA test. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Aforesaid liberty prayed for is allowed.”

5. The petitioner filed the written arguments before the learned trial court, under his signatures through counsel. In its third para, he absolutely misstated the facts and misquoted the above order as under:

“............the res