( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed by Smt. Kanchan Bedi and her son master Aman Bedi born on 1. 7. 2000 alleging that Smt. Kanchan Bedi was married to Shri Gurpreet Singh Bedi, the Defendant herein, on 22. 9. 1999 at Gurudwara hemkunt Saheb. The husband, Shri Gurpreet Singh Bedi Defendant No. 1 and plaintiff No. 1 are stated to have come back to Delhi on 27. 9. 1999 and to have started residing together at AG-557-D, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi. The Defendant has denied that any marriage has taken place between him and Smt. Kanchan; and that she had liaisons with other men; and that he has not sired the child, Master Aman. It has also been alleged in the Written Statement that Ms. Kanchan was previously married. This is not disputed and a photocopy of her Decree of Divorce under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed today. There appears to be no documentary evidence to substantiate that the marriage took place at Hemkunt saheb on 22. 9. 1999. For the present, even if it is assumed that no marriage took place, if it is otherwise established that the Defendant is the biological father of Master aman, his liability and pious obligation to maintain his son would remain unaffected. If it is proved by the Plaintiff that the marriage did take place as alleged in the plaint, the effect would be that there would be an automatic presumption, albeitrebuttable, about the legitimacy of Master Aman. The Birth Certificate of Plaintiff No. 2 is on record and it declares the Defendant as the father. The registration of this birth has taken place as far back as on 27. 7. 2000. So far as the denials contained in the reply to the petition are concerned this is as far as the controversy extends.

( 2 ) IN order to establish the parentage of the infant Aman an application has been filed by the Plaintiff praying that a DNA test should be ordered. This has been strenuously opposed by the Defendant whose Counsel has firstly contended that the prayer is precipitate inasmuch as Issues have yet to be framed in the suit. I find no merit in this submission for the reason that the law contemplates the grant of interim maintenance and if the Plaintiff is to wait till close to the conclusion of the suit, this right would be illusory. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon ble supreme Court in Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal and Anr. II (1993) DMC162 (SC)= (1993) 3 SCC 418 by the Defendant, in particular to its paragraphs 18 and 26. In order to arrive at a proper understanding of that pronouncement these paragraphs are reproduced below:

"18. Blood grouping test is a useful test to determine the question of disputed paternity. It can be relied upon by Courts as a circumstantial evidence which ultimately excludes a certain individual as a father of the child. However, it requires to be carefully noted no person can be compelled to give sample of blood for analysis against his/her will and no adverse inference can be drawn against him/her for his refusal. "

"26. From the above discussion it emerges (1) that Courts in India cannot order blood test as a matter of course;

(2) wherever applications are made for such prayers in order to have roving inquiry the prayer for blood test cannot be entertained;

(3) there must be a strong prima facie case in that the husband must establish non-access in order to dispel the presumption arising under Section 112 of the Evidence Act;

(4) the Court must carefully examine as to what would be the consequence of ordering the blood test; whether it will have the effect of branding a child as a bastard and the mother as an unchaste woman;

(5) no one can be compelled to give sample of blood for analysis. "the facts of Kundu s case (supra) was that the marriage of the spouses was admitted. An application had been filed by the husband seeking a DNA test, which the Court rejected. What must have obviously weighed in the mind of the Court was that the legitimacy of the child was presumed and to subject a wife to