Punjab and Haryana Excessive Courtroom whereas coping with a revision petition in opposition to the order handed by the Household Courtroom, permitting respondent’s utility in search of DNA check to find out the paternity of the petitioner’s youngster in response to her upkeep petition, held that because the marriage is disputed by the respondent, order of DNA check to find out paternity isn’t warranted.

The petitioner, on the premise of proof which she chooses to guide has to ascertain her marriage as the identical is being disputed by the respondent.

The bench comprising Justice Suvir Sehgal additional added that figuring out the paternity of the kid isn’t the moot query within the on the spot case the place the factum of marriage itself is disputed by the respondent.

The petitioner, on the premise of proof which she chooses to guide has to ascertain her marriage as the identical is being disputed by the respondent. This Courtroom due to this fact, is of the opinion that figuring out the paternity of the kid isn’t the moot level.

Within the on the spot case, the petitioner claimed upkeep from the respondent alleging that she is his legally wedded spouse and a baby was born out of the wedlock. No declare was raised on behalf of the minor. Due to this fact, the court docket opined that the petitioner ought to set up her marriage first as a result of the identical is being disputed by the respondent.

Courtroom additional thought of the judgement in Dipanwita Roy Versus Ronobroto Roy 2014 (4) RCR (Civil) 724 whereby it was held that if the path to carry DNA check to find out the paternity of the kid may be averted, then it needs to be averted in order that the legitimacy of a kid isn’t put to peril.

So far as the judgement in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik Versus Lata Nandlal Badwaik and one other (2014) 2 SCC 576, is anxious, the court docket held that the details in each the instances are completely completely different. Due to this fact, the reliance positioned on this judgement by the counsel for the respondent can’t be accepted.

In view of the above dialogue, this Courtroom allowed the petition and concluded that the order handed by the Household Courtroom directing the petitioner to endure a blood check isn’t warranted within the details and circumstances of the current case. Consequently, impugned order can’t be sustained.

Case Title : Smt. Satya Roopa Sinha v. Sarwan Kumar Mehto

Click on Right here To Learn/Obtain Order



Supply hyperlink