Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
JAYANT BANERJI, UMESH M. ADIGA
G. Munikrishnappa, S/o. Late Gailinarasappa – Appellant
Versus
Nalini, Wife Of G. Munikrishnappa, D/o. Chennigarayappa – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge of divorce petition under hindu law. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. contentions presented by both parties. (Para 4 , 8) |
| 3. evidence analysis and findings of the family court. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. privacy and testamentary analysis in paternity disputes. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. affirmation of legitimacy and appeal dismissal. (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT :
JAYANT BANERJI, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal has been filed seeking to challenge the judgment and order dated 23.09.2016, the decree of which was signed on 07.10.2016. By means of the impugned decree, the petition filed by the appellant under Section 13 (1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed.
3. The case of the petitioner was that he got married to the respondent on 15.06.1997 as per Hindu rites and customs and the marriage was consummated. They led a happy married life for one year. Thereafter the respondent ill-treated the petitioner. Reconciliation efforts were made, but to no avail. It is stated that on 15.06.1998, without informing the petitioner and his mother, the respondent left the matrimonial home and stayed at Obichoodahalli at her relatives house. On enquiries being
The court upheld that without substantial evidence, allegations of cruelty and desertion do not warrant a divorce, affirming the legitimacy of a child through DNA evidence while protecting rights to ....
DNA Test – It is not always necessary to conduct DNA test to ascertain whether a particular child was born to a particular person – It is burden of person who alleges or disputes paternity that he ha....
In paternity disputes, the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act prevails unless strong evidence of non-access is established, balancing privacy rights against the ne....
The court emphasized balancing the child's right to ascertain paternity with the father's right to privacy while ordering DNA testing under Section 112.
Section 112 of Indian Evidence Act, which reads as birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy.
Husband cannot be asked to pay maintenance to a child where DNA test report records that he is not biological father of child.
(1) DNA test – Paternity of child – Any Matrimonial (Civil) dispute between husband and wife pertaining to child born from wedlock, cannot be used for their own benefit by way of DNA Paternity Test, ....
The court upheld the right to privacy under Article 21, ruling that a party cannot be compelled to undergo a DNA test without exceptional circumstances, emphasizing the presumption of legitimacy in p....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
