JUDGMENT I. MAHANTY, J. — The present revision has been filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge an order dated 26.3.2007, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Athamallik in Crl. Misc. Case No.64/2003, in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. directing payment of maintenance of Rs.500/- each to the opposite parties, namely, Radhika Pradhan and Nirupama Pradhan (wife and daughter of the petitioner respectively). 2. On a perusal of the pleadings taken in the petition, it appears that the essence of the contention of the petitioner was that the petitioner had raised suspicion over the character of Opposite Party No.1 and stated that Opposite Party No.1 had became pregnant through other sources. He further asserted that the petitioner had no sexual relationship with the Opposite Party No.1 from 15.2.2002 while the Opposite Party No.1 gave birth to a daughter, namely, Nirupama Pradhan (O.P. No.2) on 19.4.2003, i.e. after a period of 14 months from the date of departure of petitioner, which gave rise to suspicion on the part of the petitioner that he was not the father of Opposite Party No.2. 3. The trial Court has noted that while the petitioner’s wife before him is a rustic village lady, yet, she had proposed in course of the trial to the opposite party-husband that since her husband disputes the paternity of their daughter-Nirupama, she was willing to undergo DNA Test to set aside such doubt but the present petitioner, in course of the trial, did not agree to such proposal. 4. In view of the fact that the husband did not agree to the proposal, the trial Court held that he having denied such an offer establishes that the husband is uncertain in respect of his own claim and, therefore, draw an inference against him. In this aspect, reliance was placed in the case of Thogorani @ K. Damay¬anti v. State, OLR 2004 (29) 29. 5. In course of the present revision, the same issue was once again reiterated and in a Misc. Case No.2296 of 2007 dis¬posed of vide order dated 12.11.2007, directions were issued to the Registrar (Judicial), to make the arrangement for the DNA Test and accordingly, in terms of the said direction, the blood samples of all the parties were drawn and sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata for its expert opinion. Case No.2296 of 2007 dis¬posed of vide order dated 12.11.2007, directions were issued to the Registrar (Judicial), to make the arrangement for the DNA Test and accordingly, in terms of the said direction, the blood samples of all the parties were drawn and sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata for its expert opinion. The report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory was opened in Court on 20.10.2009 and the said report is extracted herein. “Report No. : CFSL (K)/EE/2009 (Orissa)-114 Dated : 01.6.2009. From the above observations, it is concluded that Mr. Arun Kumar Pradhan (Source of Exhibit : A Blood Sample I) is the biological father of Ms. Nirupama Pradhan (Source of Exhibit C: Blood Sample III), daughter of Ms. Radhika Pradhan (Source of Exhibit B: Blood Sample II). Note : 1. Results relate only to exhibits tested. 2. Sealed remnants of the exhibits A.B. and C are returned after examination under the sample seal given below.” By order dated 29.10.2009, directions were issued for both the parties to appear in person. Although the Opposite Party-wife had appeared, the petitioner-husband did not appear in spite of communication of order by his legal counsel. 6. In view of the facts and noted hereinabove, the submis¬sions and contentions raised by the petitioner herein made need no further consideration whatsoever and therefore, the criminal revision stands dismissed with litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) payable by the petitioner in favour of Opposite Parties. Consequently, all interim orders passed stand vacated. In view of the dismissal of the present revision petition, the executing Court is at liberty to proceed forthwith and is directed to take all effective steps to recover the outstanding maintenance amount from the husband at the earliest. Revision dismissed.