Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, J.:- The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of order dated 23.12.2015 (Annexure P-5), whereby, the application moved by the petitioner for conducting DNA test of respondent No.2 has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1-wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance to herself and respondent No.2 (minor son). Said petition was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent No.1 and Rs. 2500/- per month to respondent No.2 (son).

3. Aggrieved by the said order of grant of maintenance, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Sessions Court, Jalandhar, which is still pending. However, during pendency of the said revision petition, the petitioner moved an application for issuance of direction to respondent No.1 to bring respondent No.2 to concerned Forensic Science Laboratory for conducting DNA test.

4. As per grounds in the application, respondent No.2 was not born from the loins of petitioner and respondent No.1 as respondent No.1- wife was living in adultery. The said application was contested by respondent No.1 and even the reply was also filed but ultimately, it was dismissed on 23.12.2015 on the ground that similar application moved by the petitioner had already been dismissed by the trial Court on 18.12.2013 and the said order of dismissal of application was never challenged before any Court of law. The impugned order of dismissal of application has been challenged by the petitioner by raising various grounds.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Revisional Court, while passing the impugned order, has not taken into consideration the cross-examination of respondent No.1-wife as she has categorically admitted that she wanted to get conducted the DNA test and was ready for the same but still the application was dismissed. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that as per provisions of Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the conclusive proof of legitimacy of a child born during a valid marriage is not absolute in nature. In case, the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time then legitimacy of the child cannot be considered as conclusive proof that the child was born out from the husband.

6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the impugned order as well as other documents available on the file.

7. The filing of petition by respondent No.1-wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance for herself and her son respondent No.2 is not disputed. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 took place on 13.02.2005. Both the parties remained together as husband and wife. Respondent no.1-wife moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was allowed. The respondents filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phillaur, wherein, the petitioner made a statement before the Court that he will provide all the facilities to the respondents. The said petition was withdrawn on 30.10.2011. Both the parties remained together for a period of two months but the behaviour of petitioner was not good towards respondents and she moved an application before the Police Station, Goraya. The petitioner admitted his guilt but still, respondent-wife was maltreated. Thereafter, both the respondents left the house of the petitioner. A petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C was filed, which was contested by the petitioner. During pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner-husband filed an application before the trial Court for conducting DNA test, which was dismissed on 18.12.2013 and the same was not challenged before any competent Court of law.

8. Aggrieved by the order of maintenance, the revision petition was filed by the petitioner. During pendency of the said petition, an application was moved with the same p