ORDER :

A.P. Thaker, J.

1. The petitioner has filed present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with a prayer to quash and set side order dated 11.12.2018 passed below Exh. 14 in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 56 of 2017 by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhidham-Kutch.

2. The petitioner-original plaintiff is a labourer and marriage of the petitioner is solemnized about 6 years before the filing of application for dissolution of marriage. The petitioner has filed application for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery of his wife. The petitioner filed application Exh. 14 for conducting DNA test to prove the paternity of the child on the ground that there was no access to his wife after solemnization of marriage. It is stated that one child was born in the year 2010 and another in 2013. It is stated that learned Family Court Judge has not considered any grounds averred in the application while deciding the application for DNA test and passed the impugned order rejecting Exh. 14 application against which present petition is preferred.

3. Learned counsel, Mr. Mehul Mehta, for the petitioner has submitted that Hindu Marriage Petition No. 56 of 2017 was filed for dissolution of marriage between the appellant and the respondent, and in such petition, the appellant has preferred an application for DNA test of the children and the wife, which application has been rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 11.12.2018. He has contended that the trial Court has committed serious error of facts and law in rejecting the application. He has also contended that when there is an allegation of non-cohabitation of the appellant with the respondent, the children born are a result of illicit relationship of the wife with another person. By relying upon the decision in the case of Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy AIR 2015 SC 418, he has submitted that identical facts are there and, therefore, in view of the said decision this Court should also direct the respondent to undergo DNA test. It is contended that earlier wife has shown readiness for DNA test but now she is declining the same. He has also relied upon the following decisions.

1. Narayan Dutt Tiwari v. Rohit Shekhar and Another (2012) 12 SCC 554.

2. Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy AIR 2015 SC 418.

3. Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal 1993 (2) GLH 996.

4. Per contra, Mr. Malav Mulani, for the respondent has submitted that first child has born in the year 2010 and another child has born in 2013. According to him, after four years from the birth of last child, present suit came to be filed. According to him, there was cohabitation between husband and wife. He has also contended that there is no strong prima facie case in favour of the petitioner in undergoing DNA test and the decision sought to be relied by the appellant are rather helpful to the respondent. He has also contended that if wife did not agree with DNA test then adverse inference could be drawn and there is no need for such test. He has also contended that there are only bald allegations regarding infidelity on the part of the wife. He has also contended that now the age of the children is seven and nine years respectively, and husband and wife are now not living together. He has prayed to dismiss present petition.

5. Before dealing with the facts of the case, it would be appropriate to refer to various decisions and the observations made therein with a view to appreciate the controversy involved in the present case. The Apex Court in the case of Goutam Kundu v. West Bengal (1993) 3 SCC 418] observed as under:-

"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 her w