IMPORTANT POINT
DNA Profiling is best method to determine paternity of child.

1. The unsuccessful petitioner/husband filed this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the orders dated 21.09.2011 of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Jagtial passed in IA.No.378 of 2011 in OP.No.18 of 2008 filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act requesting to refer the petitioner, the respondent/his wife and her son Shiva Kumar for DNA test at Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Habsiguda, Hyderabad for determination of parentage of the said male child Shiva Kumar by the Centre.

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. I have perused the material record.

3. The facts, which are necessary for consideration, in brief, are as follows:

The petitioner and the respondent are man and wife. The petitioner filed the original petition before the trial Court for grant of divorce by dissolution of the marriage between the parties and in that original petition, he had taken a plea that he is not responsible for the birth of the male child-Shiva Kumar by the respondent and that he had no access to the respondent, who is the mother of the said male child-Shiva Kumar and that the respondent had conceived the male child on account of the illicit intimacy with one Mutyala Sathaiah and that, therefore, it is, in the interests of justice, to refer the parties and the male child of the respondent to the said Centre to undergo DNA test. The said application was resisted by the respondent/wife by denying the allegations and inter alia contending that no criminal case is filed on the grounds of adultery against the respondent and the alleged person, who is said to be the father of the male child; and, that the petition is filed to harass and defame the respondent and to create some ground to avoid payment of maintenance to the respondent; and, that the respondent cannot be compelled to undergo DNA examination; and, that the son is aged 3 years and that after lapse of three years, for the first time, the false allegations are made. The trial Court, having considered the pleadings and submissions made before it and following the ratio in the decision of the Supreme Court in Goutham Kundu v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1993 SC 2295) had dismissed the application of the petitioner/husband.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the present revision petition is filed and it is inter alia contended that the child Shiva Kumar to whom the respondent gave birth is not the Son of the petitioner and that the respondent conceived the said child on account of her illicit intimacy with one Mutyala Sathaiah and that to substantiate the allegation of infidelity urged in the divorce OP, the petitioner had made an application before the Court below for directing the parties and the said child-Shiva Kumar to undergo DNA test and that such a direction to the parties is necessary to establish whether or not the petitioner had fathered the male child born to the respondent/wife and that the Court below, in the facts and circumstances of the case, ought to have ordered the petition as the petitioner has gone to the extent of even naming the person who was the father of the child born to the respondent/wife. So contending, the learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on the decisions in Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (AIR 2015 SC 418)and Manjudari Neerada @ Radhi v. M.P. Narasimha Rao (2015(4) ALT 157). He would submit that the Supreme Court in the latest decision had also considered not only the decision which was followed by the trial Court but also the other decisions holding the field and that the Supreme Court had finally held that the husband’s plea that he had no access to the wife when the child was begotten stands proved by the DNA test report and that in the face of such a report, the Court cannot compel the husband to bare the fatherhood of a child, when the scientific report proves the contrary and that, therefore, in view