( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 29. 11. 2002 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, senior Division, Nasik on the application exhibit-173 filed in H. M. P. No. 195/95 by which the said application filed by the respondent-wife seeking D. N. A. test of the petitioner and child - rupesh was allowed. The petitioner was directed to make himself available for conducting DNA test and also to secure the presence of Rupesh for the said test before Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Nasik on 12. 12. 2002. This Court, however, while admitting the petition had granted stay to the execution of the impugned order.

( 3 ) THE factual matrix that may be relevant and material for considering the challenge, briefly stated, is as follows: The petitioner and respondent are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnised on 4th April, 1986. They were blessed with a female child. Due to some differences and events that occurred prior to 1995 the petitioner-husband filed H. M. P. No. 195/95 under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce. The case set up by the respondent-wife is that on 25th March, 1996 the petitioner solemnised second marriage with one Smt. Meena Chandrakant Nirphale and after their marriage fathered a son - Rupesh, who was born on 3rd December, 1997. The petitioner, however, denied the allegations and particularly the paternity of the child - Rupesh. In view thereof, after the evidence was laid by the parties and before arguments were heard the application - Exhibit-173 was filed by the respondent-wife seeking DNA test to determine fatherhood of the petitioner. The trial Court allowed the application holding that in the interest of justice DNA test would be necessary and that will give an opportunity to the respondent-wife to establish her case that the petitioner leads an adulturous life.

( 4 ) MS. SHARVARI Jahagirdhar, learned counsel for the petitioner-husband vehemently submitted that the scope of enquiry in the marriage petition filed by the petitioner is very limited and the trial Court will have to decide whether he is entitled for divorce as prayed for in the petition and that the DNA test to establish paternity of rupesh need not be conducted. She further submitted it is well settled that DNA test is not to be directed as a matter of routine and only in deserving cases such a direction can be given. The present case does not fall in the aforesaid category. Ms. Jahagirdhar further submitted that meena and Rupesh are not party to the proceedings and, therefore, the order directing Rupesh to submit himself to the test is in violation of the principles of natural justice. On the other hand mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent-wife submitted that DNA test of the petitioner and child would be necessary to prove the allegation that the petitioner is leading adulterous life after deserting the respondent-wife and is, therefore, not entitled for divorce. In the alternative he submitted that since the petitioner is not submitting to the test an adverse inference may be drawn against him holding that Rupesh is his son from Smt. Meena.

( 5 ) THE core question involved in this petition is whether DNA test, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is necessary. Indubitably, deoxyribonucleic acid test, which is commonly known as dna test, is useful to determine the question of disputed paternity. Though the Court is empowered it cannot order a person to submit to such a test as a matter of routine and only in deserving cases such direction can be given. The court is expected to exercise such discretion/power, in matrimonial cases, only when such a test is in the best interest of the child. The courts should exercise this discretion wisely. The object of the court always is to find out the truth. It is true that no person can be compelled to give a sample of blood for analysis against his/her will. However, in the event of refusal it is open for the Cou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document