The imposition of conditions for DNA testing at the stage of awarding interim maintenance must be in accordance with the statutory provisions and should not have self-defeating consequences.

Judgment

DORAISWAMY RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THE above appeals have been filed against the order of a learned single judge of the High Court of Punjab and haryana at Chandigarh dated 10. 11. 2000 in civil revision no. 5057/ 1998 and a subsequent order dated 7. 12. 2000 passed in a review application no. 112-C-II/2000.

( 2 ) HEARD Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. K. Rajendra Choudhary, learned senior counsel for the respondent.

( 3 ) THE appellant is the wife of the first respondent. The respondent - husband has filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the court of learned district judge, Ludhiana seeking dissolution of the marriage by grant of a decree for divorce on the grounds of alleged adultery and cruelty. The said petition is still pending for trial and final disposal. Pending the said petition, the appellant herein filed an application under section 24 of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955 claiming maintenance for a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month for herself and Rs. 1000/- each for minor children residing with her. There is no dispute over the fact that out of the lawful wedlock, the appellant has given birth to three daughters and one son, of which, one daughter is said to be with the appellant. There is yet another son who is also living with the appellant-wife, who also is claimed to be a son borne out of the lawful wedlock, though the respondent -husband would raise doubts about the details of parentage of the said child Having regard to the fact that a limited notice has been issued in this case, confined to the question with regard to the order passed by the High court for conducting a DNA test of the child. it is unnecessary to deal with the details with reference to the claims made by the respective parties about the details of income of either of the parties. Suffice it to state that the learned trial judge has chosen to reject the claim for interim maintenance and on a revision before the High Court, the learned single judge though was prepared to countenance the claim of the wife and as a matter of fact directed the respondent - husband to pay Rs. 2000/- by way of litigation expenses to the appellant and pay a further sum of Rs. 2000/- per month by way of maintenance from the date of her application, proceeded further and observed as follows:-"during the course of the submissions, it was suggested to the counsel for the petitioner and his client Smt. Amarjit Kaur whether they are willing to get DNA test of the male child namely Samarjit Singh. Before concluding, directions are also given to the trial court to order for conducting the DNA test of the male child who is in the custody of the petitioner and if the test goes against the petitioner, she will not be entitled to get any maintenance pendente lite for herself but she will definitely get the maintenance for the girl child whose maintenance is fixed at Rs. 1000/- per month. "

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED, the wife moved an application by way of review and sought to bring to the notice of the court the decision reported in Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal and Another. The learned single judge, by a cryptic order, has chosen to reject the review application with costs, in a sum of Rs. 1000/- Hence, the above appeals.

( 5 ) THE learned senior counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the conduct of the parties which requires to be adjudicated in the main writ petition has no relevance, at the stage of granting interim or pendente lite maintenance and that the consideration in this regard has to be confined to the criteria specified in section 24 of the Hindu Marriage act, 1955. It was also pointed out that imposition of a condition which will operate as a disfeasance clause, to deprive the very maintenance order to be paid, particularly of the nature imposed in this case directing the conduct of DNA test of the male child in question is not warranted. Argued the learned counsel further that this Court in th