1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 03-7-2014 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari district in I.A.No.715 of 2014 in O.S.No.452 of 2011.

2. The respondents filed the suit to declare the 1st respondent as the legally wedded wife and the 2nd respondent as the legitimate son of the revision petitioner and for grant of maintenance to them. In the said suit, they filed an interlocutory application to send the blood samples of the 2nd plaintiff and the defendant to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for the purpose of conducting DNA test to decide the paternity of the 2nd plaintiff. The said I.A., was allowed by the learned trial Court. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant filed the present revision.

3. I have heard Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Yeka Balasubrahmanyam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that without there being any prima facie evidence about the marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, the trial Court allowed the petition directing the petitioner to undergo DNA test in a routine manner and the said direction not being in accordance with law is liable to be set aside in the present revision petition. According to the learned counsel, a party can be directed to undergo DNA test only in deserving cases where it is not possible to reach the truth of paternity without use of such test and where there is strong prima facie material about the marriage between the parties and on proof of the fact that the husband gaining access to wife during relevant period.

5. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that since the petitioner without any basis disowned his relationship with the respondents, it became necessary for them to make an application before the trial Court for a direction to the petitioner to undergo DNA test and the direction issued by the trial Court being justified having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order does not require any interference in the revision.

6. In BhabaniPrasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women (AIR 2010 SC 2851), the Supreme Court held as follows:

“In a matter where paternity of a child is in issue before the Court, the use of DNA is an extremely delicate and sensitive aspect. There is apparent conflict between the right to privacy of a person not to submit himself forcibly to medical examination and duty of the Court to reach the truth, the Court must exercise its discretion only after balancing the interests of the parties and on due consideration whether for a just decision in matter, DNA is eminently needed. DNA in a matter relating to paternity of a child should not be directed by the Court as a matter of course or in a routine manner, whenever such a request is made. The Court has to consider diverse aspects including presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act; pros and cons of such order and the test of ‘eminent need’ whether it is not possible for the Court to reach the truth without use of such test.”

7. The afore-referred judgment was relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel argued that the trial Court in a mechanical way directed the petitioner to undergo DNA test without recording any sufficient reasons and also without considering the other aspects including the presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act. According to the learned counsel, since the respondents could not be able to place on record any material prima facie showing the relationship between the parties, the trial Court ought not to have directed the petitioner to undergo DNA test.

8. To appreciate the contentions urged, the plea put forth by the defendant in the written statement before the trial Court requires to be examined. In response to the assertion made by the respondents that the 1st respon