The interest of the child must be safeguarded in paternity disputes, and the court may order a fresh DNA test to ensure the rights of all parties involved.

ORDER :

1. Heard Ms. M. Anusha, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri Venkat Challa, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel representing for the respondents.

2. This revision-petition is directed against the Order, dated 18.09.2015 in I.A. No. 465 of 2015 in O.S. No. 498 of 2013 on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry.

3. The revision-petition is filed by the revision-petitioner/ plaintiff/husband in the suit questioning the Order delivered by the Trial Court under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity “the Act”) wherein the request of the mother and son, who are the defendants in the suit, was “Allowed” for conducting Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Test, as the revision-petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the respondents/ defendants in the suit are not his wife and son and to grant Mandatory Injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from claiming as “wife” and “son” of the revision-petitioner/ plaintiff using his surname.

4. Parties in this revision-petition are referred to as they were arrayed in the proceedings before the Trial Court.

5. Ms. M. Anusha, learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the learned Trial Court committed illegality by erroneously ordering DNA Test on an application filed by the mother and son, who are claiming as wife and son, respectively, of the plaintiff. She would further submit that earlier, the defendants presented a report to the police against the plaintiff alleging that the plaintiff, on the pretext of marrying the defendant No. 1, had sexual intercourse and as a result, the defendant No. 1 begot the defendant No. 2 and she also filed a Maintenance Case vide M.C. No. 67 of 2010 and both the cases i.e. criminal and maintenance cases were “Dismissed” and in the criminal case, the police got conducted the DNA Test to establish the paternity of the child and the Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory went against the defendants in the criminal case and therefore, when already a DNA Test was conducted, without setting aside the Report in the said DNA Test issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Forensic Science Laboratory, the Trial Court erroneously ordered DNA Test again and thereby, committed illegality and hence, the Order shall be set-aside.

6. In support of the contentions, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Muni Anjanappa @ Thammaiah vs. Smt. Roopa @ Gangalakshmi and Another in Writ Petition No. 22273 of 2022 (GM-FC), dated 16.11.2022.

7. Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel representing for the defendants would contend that the question of setting-aside the earlier DNA Report in the present suit proceedings would not arise as the present suit proceedings are different proceedings from the earlier criminal proceedings and in the Judgment relied on by the plaintiff, the facts are different as the earlier Report was also issued in the same proceedings and the husband filed another application in the same proceedings for conducting DNA Test in some other laboratory alleging that the Report issued by the earlier laboratory was not conducted by the Doctor as directed by the Court. But, in the case on hand, the earlier test was conducted at the instance of police in criminal proceedings and the present suit is filed by the husband for declaration that the child was not born to him, which will have a serious consequences on the future of the child and question of setting-aside the said Report in the present proceedings will not arise and further, on the face of the earlier Report, it is very clear that the Report was issued after “One year” of taking the blood samples and the said Report has no information as to when the blood samples were examined by the Expert and why “One year” time was taken by the Expert to issue the said Report and in those circumstances, it is not a reliable report and therefore, the