ORDER : 1. This petition is filed impugning the order dated 04.12.2017 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.580/2014 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Vijaypura (for short “the Trial Court”). 2. The material facts are that: The respondents initiated proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in Criminal Miscellaneous No.481/2011 before the Trial Court seeking maintenance asserting that the respondent No.1 was duly married to the petitioner and the respondent No.2 is their daughter. The Trial Court granted maintenance to the respondents awarding a sum of Rs.2,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,750/- to respondent No.2. The petitioner engaged service of a counsel and also filed objections contesting the petition. However, the petitioner did not lead any evidence resulting in the grant of maintenance as aforesaid. Thereafter, the petitioner represented by Mrs. Anusuya, filed petition under Section 126 of Cr.P.C. for recalling the order in Criminal Miscellaneous No.481/2011. The material assertion in this petition, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner was of unsound mind and unable to protect his interest. The petitioner’s parents are also deceased. Mrs. Anusuya is married to the petitioner and she has two sons from this marriage. The petitioner, being constrained, did not contest the Criminal Miscellaneous No.481/2011 except for arranging the service of a counsel. The objection statement was filed by the counsel for the petitioner without the petitoner's signature. The petitioner is neither working as a contractor nor has any income from agricultural land. This petition under Section 126 of Cr.P.C. is belated and therefore, an application for condonation of delay is filed. 3. The respondents, upon service of the petition, appeared through their counsel and contested the petition reiterating their case in Crl.Misc.No.481/2011. The respondents took up specific contention that the Court could order a Paternity Test-DNA test to establish paternity of respondent No.2. 4. Mrs. Anusuya examined herself as P.W.1 in support of the contentions in the petition under Section 126 of Cr.P.C in Crl.Misc.No.580/2014. She stated that her marriage to petitioner was solemnized on 16.11.1997. The petitioner was healthy as on the date of the marriage, but his mental health deteriorated. He was taken to mental hospital at Dharwad, Solapur and Bengaluru. The petitioner's mental health did not improve despite the medical treatment he received from a host of doctors. She stated that her marriage to petitioner was solemnized on 16.11.1997. The petitioner was healthy as on the date of the marriage, but his mental health deteriorated. He was taken to mental hospital at Dharwad, Solapur and Bengaluru. The petitioner's mental health did not improve despite the medical treatment he received from a host of doctors. The petitioner could not have participated in the proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.481/2011 because of his deteriorating mental health and his counsel also could not have communicated effectively with him. 5. However, it is undisputed that the petitioner and the respondent No.2 underwent a DNA Profile Test pursuant to the orders of the Trial Court in Crl. Misc.No.580/2014 and a report is filed. The report is that the petitioner is the biological father of the respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 is her biological mother. This report has remained uncontroverted inasmuch as the petitioner / Mrs. Anusuiya did not challenge the report. In the light of the evidence on record, the Trial Court opined that there is no merit in the petition filed under Section 126 of Cr.P.C., and by the impugned order dismissed the petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, who is represented by Mrs.Anusuya in the present proceedings submits that the Court has rendered a finding about the matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1. The Trial Court has observed that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 cannot be disputed in the light of the DNA Profile Report. The petitioner has not filed any suit disputing the relationship between the petitioner-respondent No.1. This finding forecloses all disputes as regards marital relationship without a necessary and complete adjudication. As regards the quantum of maintenance, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner because of his mental health, is not engaged in any contract work and as such no maintenance could have been granted to the respondents even on this ground. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that though it is contended that the petitioners suffers from mental health, no evidence has been placed on record in this regard. The petitioner had to place necessary medical evidence to substantiate the same, and in the absence thereof the petitioner can neither resist grant of maintenance nor justify non-participation in the earlier proceedings. The petitioner had to place necessary medical evidence to substantiate the same, and in the absence thereof the petitioner can neither resist grant of maintenance nor justify non-participation in the earlier proceedings. As regards the quantum of compensation, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Trial Court has awarded a total sum of Rs.3,750/- for both the mother and the daughter, and this amount cannot be called exaggerated in view of the undisputed fact that the petitioner/ his family own agricultural lands. 8. In a petition under Section 126 (2) of Cr.P.C., a Magistrate, if sufficient cause is shown for non-participation by a person against whom an order of maintenance is made exparte, may set aside such exparteorder. The twinfold argument for recall of the earlier exparteorder in the Crl.Misc.No.481/2011 is that the petitioner because of his mental illhealth, could not have participated in the proceedings (and he did not therefore participate in the proceedings) and there is no matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondents, there is no material on record as regards the petitioner’s mental health except ocular assertion by Mrs. Anusuya, who is examined as P.W.1, and certain medical cards to establish that the petitioner has received some treatment. Further, it is also undisputed that the petitioner had engaged the services of an advocate in Crl.Misc.No.481/2011, and even this advocate is not examined to explain the circumstances in which his services were engaged. Therefore, first fold is not substantiated. 9. As regard the matrimonial relationship between the petitioner-respondent No.1, notwithstanding the DNA Report, the respondent No.1 would be entitled for maintenance even if she were to establish cohabitation with petitioner. The DNA Report, even if not conclusive as against the matrimonial relationship, definitely establishes cohabitation, or in the least relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1. As such, the second fold would also not available to the petitioner. Therefore, there is no ground for interference by this Court in this petition. However, it must be observed that the DNA Profile Report or any observation in these proceedings about the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 could only be for the purposes of adjudication of the petitions under Section 125 and 126 of Cr.P.C. For the foregoing, the petition is disposed of with the observation as aforesaid.