(1) This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 5.3.2009 passed in IA No.35 of 2009 in OP No. 13 of 2007 by the Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram, Vishakapatnam District, allowing the application filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872, read with Section 151 CPC by the 1st respondent to subject the petitioner and her son including himself to undergo DNA test to determine the paternity of the son of the petitioner.

(2) The petitioner is wife and the 1st respondent is her husband, the above OP is filed by the husband-1st respondent herein for divorce on the alleged ground of petitioner leading an adulterous life with the 2nd respondent herein. The dispute between the parties relates to the identity of the child. The petitioner states that the child is the son of the 1st respondent, but the 1st respondent denies and disputes the same and states that the child is born out of adulterous life of the petitioner.

(3) The parties, petitioner and 1st respondent were married on 7.12.2002 at Lankavanipalem Village, K. Kotapadu Mandal and lived amicably for a period of 31/2 years and thereafter disputes arouse between the parties, as it is stated that the petitioner developed illicit intimacy and maintained extra marital relationship with the 2nd respondent. It is stated that for this reason, the petitioner was left at her parents house and she is staying at her parents house. It is stated that the 1st respondent came to know that the petitioner gave birth to a male child, but he denies paternity of the child on the ground that he has no access to the petitioner at the relevant time and the child born to the petitioner is not his son. The petitioner denied the allegations made by the 1st respondent and stated that she conceived when she was in the company of her husband-1st respondent.

(4) Sri S. Sridhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court below having held that a party cannot be compelled to undergo DNA test erred in observing that if she does not undergo the test, adverse interference would be drawn for not doing so. It is also contended that though the petitioner in her cross-examination stated no objection for subjecting herself to the test, that itself is not a ground to straightaway allow the application filed by the respondent-husband unless he prima facie prove his case. On the other hand, Sri K. Subrahmanyam, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the question about the paternity of a child can only be displaced by a strong preponderance of evidence and not by a mere balance of probabilities, and as such the Court below rightly allowed the application.

(5) In view of the controversy involved, this Court sought the assistance of Sri VLNKG Murthy, learned Counsel to be amicus curie in the matter. Learned Counsel (amicus curie) submitted that in matrimonial disputes, the Court has a conciliatory role to play and for the said purpose it may require expert advice. It is also stated that there is no provision either in the Code of Civil Procedure or the Evidence Act or any other law which may be said to authorize the Court to compel a person to undergo such a medical test, but in appropriate cases, to secure ends of justice, the Court can exercise discretion if the applicant has a strong prima facie case and there is sufficient material before the Court. In support of his submissions cited decisions of this Court as well as the decisions of Supreme Court.

(6) Whether a party to a divorce proceeding can be compelled to a medical test to determine the paternity of the child is the controversy in this case.

(7) It is the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that merely the petitioner-wife has stated that she has no objection to undergo the DNA test that does not itself be a ground to allow the application, unless the 1st respondent-husband establishes his case that there was no access to his wife and then alone a strong preponderance of evidence can