IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1866 OF 2025 Between:

Davuluri Vinod ….Petitioner Vs.

D. Laxmi @ A.L.N. Phani Kumari and another …. Respondents DATE OF ORDER: 10.07.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes _________________________

K. LAKSHMAN, J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN + CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1866 of 2025 % 10-07-2025 # Davuluri Vinod ….Petitioner Vs.

$ D. Laxmi @ A.L.N. Phani Kumari and another …. Respondents !Counsel for the Petitioner : Smt. B. Rachna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Mohd. Baseer Riyaz Counsel for the Respondents : Sri D. Narendar Naik

? Cases referred:

2005(2) ALT (Cri) 30 1998 (1) Crimes 143

1995(1) ALT 595 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1866 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard Smt. B. Rachna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Mohd. Baseer Riyaz, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri D. Narendar Naik, learned counsel for

1^st respondent.

2. Petitioner is the husband of 1^st respondent and father of 2^nd respondent. There are disputes between the petitioner and 1^st respondent. 1^st respondent has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights. The same was dismissed. Thereupon, he filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage and the same was allowed. According to the petitioner, he has been paying maintenance to both the respondents. In proof of the same, he has filed a statement. Even then, respondents filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. vide F.C.M.C.No.12 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, against the petitioner claiming maintenance from him. During pendency of the said F.C.M.C., from 06.01.2025 onwards, his daughter, 2^nd respondent, came to him voluntarily and staying with him. He is providing education and other facilities to her. In order to prove the aforesaid aspects, he has filed a petition vide Crl.M.P.No.93 of 2025 in F.C.M.C.No.12 of 2019 under Order XVI Rules 1 and 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to permit him to produce 2^nd respondent, minor, as a witness to give her evidence in the aforesaid F.C.M.C.

3. In the said Crl.M.P., 1^st respondent herein has filed a counter contending that as the aforesaid F.C.M.C. is filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., there is no need to produce 2^nd respondent as a witness for giving evidence. Moreover, she is aged about 13 years and is studying 8^th class. Therefore, her evidence is not required.

4. Vide order dated 04.06.2025, learned trial Court dismissed the said Crl.M.P. holding that 2^nd respondent is a minor child aged about 13 years and therefore, she would not have knowledge about the marital disputes between the petitioner and 1^st respondent. The petitioner has not mentioned any reason to produce the minor girl for giving evidence. Challenging the said order dated 04.06.2025, petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the learned Family Court failed to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner. He has to prove the events taken place subsequent to the filing of the said F.C.M.C. that 2^nd respondent is staying with him during pendency of the said F.C.M.C. In order to bring the same on record, it is necessary to produce 2^nd respondent as a witness to give her evidence before the Family Court. Without considering the said aspect, vide order dated 04.06.2025, the learned Family Court dismissed the said Crl.M.P.

6. Learned counsel for 1^st respondent would contend that the present Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. R