ORDER: This is a revision case filed by the respondent in M.C. No.11 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the said maintenance case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance of Rs.800/- to the first respondent and Rs.300/- to the second respondent. The revision petitioner denied the marriage with the first respondent and the paternity of the child. In the counter filed by the revision petitioner in the M.C., he alleged that the first respondent herein married one, Datla Narayana Reddy of Mallampeta Village when she was 15 years old. He denied that the first respondent on coming to know that the said Narayana Reddy was already married, left him forever. The revision petitioner might have participated in annaprasana programme after 27 days of birth of the second respondent, but it was only due to courtesy, but much importance cannot be attached for his alleged participation. The photographs of his attending the function does not confirm any right to the respondents to get maintenance from him. It was further alleged that the revision petitioner never married first respondent and the marriage of the first respondent performed with Datla Narayana Reddy is a valid marriage and it was not dissolved. During the subsistence of the marriage of the first respondent with Narayana Reddy, they blessed with the second respondent. The first respondent entered the name of Narayana Reddy in all Government records as her husband including the voters' list. 3. The lower Court, after considering the evidence adduced by both parties, dismissed the maintenance case holding that the marriage of the first respondent with the revision petitioner is null and void and the first respondent failed to prove that the second respondent was borne to her through the revision petitioner. Aggrieved by the order, the respondents 1 and 2 preferred Crl.R.P. No.20 of 2007 before the V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Khammam at Kothagudem. During the pendency of the revision petition, the respondents 1 and 2 herein filed Criminal M.P. No.18 of 2008 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to refer them and the revision petitioner to DNA test for proving that the second respondent was born to the first respondent through the revision petitioner. During the pendency of the revision petition, the respondents 1 and 2 herein filed Criminal M.P. No.18 of 2008 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to refer them and the revision petitioner to DNA test for proving that the second respondent was born to the first respondent through the revision petitioner. The revision Court allowed the petition with a view to settle the dispute between the parties once for all regarding the paternity of the child after referring to case law placed by both parties. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision case has been filed by the respondent in M.C. No.11 of 2006. 4. The revision petitioner contended that the Court cannot compel the revision petitioner to undergo DNA test; that the revision petitioner do not want to undergo DNA test and that the order passed by the revision Court is contrary to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court, therefore he requested to allow the revision case by setting aside the order passed by the revision Court. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the following judgments in support of his contention. 6. In Goutam Kundu Vs. State of W.B. and another1 the Supreme Court held as follows: "Section 112 requires the party disputing the paternity to prove non- access in order to dispel the presumption. "Access" and non-access" mean the existence or non-existence of opportunities for sexual intercourse; it does not mean actual cohabitation. It is a rebuttable presumption of law under S.112 that a child born during the lawful wedlock is legitimate, and that access occurred between the parents. This presumption can only be displaced by a strong preponderance of evidence, and not by mere balance of probabilities. Thus following is the position as to permissibility of blood test to prove paternity. (1) That Courts in India cannot order blood test as a matter of course. (2) Wherever applications are made for such prayer in order to have roving inquiry, the prayer for blood test cannot be entertained. (3) There must be a strong prima facie case in that the husband must establish non-access in order to dispel the presumption arising under S.112 of the Evidence Act. (2) Wherever applications are made for such prayer in order to have roving inquiry, the prayer for blood test cannot be entertained. (3) There must be a strong prima facie case in that the husband must establish non-access in order to dispel the presumption arising under S.112 of the Evidence Act. (4) The Court must carefully examine as to what would be the consequence of ordering the blood test' whether it will have the effect of branding a child as a bastard and the mother as an unchaste woman. (5) No one can be compelled to give sample of blood for analysis." 7. In B.Vandana Kumari Vs. P.Praveen Kumar a learned Single Judge of this Court held as follows: "The result of a genuine DNA test is said to be scientifically accurate. But even that is not enough to escape from the conclusiveness of Section 112 of the Act, eg., if a husband and wife were living together during the time of conception but the DNA test revealed that the child was not born to the husband, the conclusiveness in law would remain unrebuttable. This may look hard from the point of view of the husband who would be compelled to bear the fatherhood of a child of which he may be innocent. But even in such a case the law leans in favour of the innocent child from being bastardized if his mother and spouse were living together during the time of conception. Hence the question regarding the degree of proof of non-access for rebutting the conclusiveness must be answered in the light of what is meant by access or non-access. Though the Court has ample power while deciding the matrimonial matters to order a person to undergo medical tests which cannot be held to be in violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, such power is required to be exercised sparingly only where sufficient material is available before the Court and a strong prima facie case has been made out by the applicant. If despite the order of the Court the respondent refuses to submit himself to medical examination, the Court will be entitled to draw an adverse inference against him." 8. The spirit of the above decisions indicate that on account of the allegation made by the revision petitioner, the second respondent will be branded as a bastard. If despite the order of the Court the respondent refuses to submit himself to medical examination, the Court will be entitled to draw an adverse inference against him." 8. The spirit of the above decisions indicate that on account of the allegation made by the revision petitioner, the second respondent will be branded as a bastard. Though the revision petitioner contended that there is no valid marriage between the first respondent and himself, he did not plead that there is no access to the first respondent. Even if it is considered for a moment that there is no valid marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent, if it is established that the revision petitioner is the father of the second respondent, he is entitled for maintenance. The revision petitioner having accepted that he attended the cradle ceremony of the child and they took the photographs, he denied his paternity of the child and attributed the child to former husband of the first respondent, therefore the burden is heavily rests on the revision petitioner to establish that there is no access to him to the first respondent till the birth of the second respondent. In the case covered by the Supreme Court, the alleged father of the child made the application to take DNA test by collecting samples of blood from the minor child and himself, therefore the Supreme Court observed that the Court cannot casually order the DNA test unless there are strong circumstances warranting such test. In the present case, the respondents 1 and 2 are ready to undergo the test, but the petitioner, who alleged that the child do not born to him, is refusing to undergo the test. The proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is a quasi- criminal proceeding and the revision petitioner cannot be treated as an accused in the strict sense, therefore, he cannot be compelled to give the blood test, which amounts to testimonial compulsion contrary to Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Court can ask him to undergo the test, which will set at rest the dispute regarding the paternity of the second respondent. The lower Court, after going through the case law and the facts and circumstances, rightly came to a conclusion that it is a fit case to direct the revision petitioner to undergo DNA test. 9. Therefore, the Court can ask him to undergo the test, which will set at rest the dispute regarding the paternity of the second respondent. The lower Court, after going through the case law and the facts and circumstances, rightly came to a conclusion that it is a fit case to direct the revision petitioner to undergo DNA test. 9. After going through the entire material, I concur with the view expressed by the lower Court and I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and I do not find any merits in the revision case. 10. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.