JUDGMENT :

BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.

1. The petitioner is the husband of the opposite party No.2. In the year 2018 the opposite party No.2 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk. The said application for maintenance was registered as Misc Case No.463 of 2018 and was transferred to the 3rd Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate at Tamluk for disposal. In the said proceeding the opposite party No.2 filed an application praying for interim maintenance and the trial court allowed the said application directing the petitioner to make payment of Rs.5500/-per month in favour of the opposite party No.2. The petitioner has been going on paying the said amount of interim maintenance in favour of the opposite party No.2. Subsequently, on 12th January, 2021 the private opposite party filed another application for interim maintenance for her child, namely, Priyankshu Maity. It was pleaded by the opposite party No.2 that the said child was born in the wedlock between the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 on 30th June, 2019 in a private nursing home. The petitioner filed a written objection in the aforesaid proceeding denying paternity of the child on the ground that the petitioner had no access to the opposite party No.2 during the period when the opposite party No.2 might be conceived for giving birth to the said child. That on 20th January, 2021 the petitioner filed an application praying for a direction upon opposite party No.2 for conducting DNA test of the said child for scientific decision as to the paternity of the said child. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court at Tamluk rejected the petitioner’s application for conducting DNA test of the said child of the opposite party No.2.

2. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk assailing the order dated 3rd February, 2021. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the prayer for DNA test vide order dated 28th April, 2022 while disposing of the said revisional application. The said order dated 28th April, 2022 is under challenge in the instant application.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the specific case of the petitioner is that the opposite party No.2 left her matrimonial home voluntarily with all her belongings on 1st October, 2014. Subsequently, on 12th October, 2018 the petitioner as plaintiff filed a suit for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce against the opposite party No.2. Therefore, the opposite party No.2 filed a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC against the petitioner and other matrimonial relations of the private opposite party, vide Marishda P.S Case No.188/2018 dated 24th November, 2018. On 28th November, 2018 she filed two applications against the petitioner, one under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and the other under Sections 125 of the Cr.P.C.

4. On the contrary, it is the case of the opposite party No.2 that she was driven out from her matrimonial home on 12th November, 2018. On 2nd December, 2018 she was medically examined and she came to know that she became pregnant. On 30th June, 2019 she gave birth to a male child in a private nursing home. During her pregnancy, her husband accompanied her to doctor’s chamber for her medical treatment. She gave birth to a male child on 30th June, 2019.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Kousik Gupta, learned Advocate for the petitioner that in Dipanwita Roy vs. Ronobroto Roy reported in (2015) 1 SCC 365, the husband filed a suit for divorce on the ground of adulterous behaviour of wife, alleging therein that wife was having extramarital relationship with another person and given birth to a son as a result of cohabitation with the said third person. The husband prayed for DNA test of himself and the son born to the wife. The Hon’ble Supreme Court taking into consideration the fact that the prayer of t