IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.P. Thaker, J.
Amrtulal Amthabhai Mistri - Appellants
Vs.
Ashwinkumar Amrutlal Mistri - Respondent
Appeal from Order No. 71 of 2019 and Civil Application No. 1 of 2019 in R/Appeal from Order No. 71 of 2019
Decided On : 24-10-2019
DNA Test - Paternity Dispute - 112 of the Evidence Act, 2010 8 SCC 633, 2005 4 SCC 449, 1993 3 SCC 418, 2011 6 SCC 73 - The court upheld the order for DNA test, considering the prima facie evidence and the advanced age of the appellant. The court also imposed a condition for the deposit of a certain amount by the plaintiff to safeguard the appellant's interest.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the appellant is his biological father and sought a DNA test. The trial court granted the interim relief directing the appellant to undergo a DNA test.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the trial court's order, considering the prima facie evidence and the advanced age of the appellant. The court also imposed a condition for the deposit of a certain amount by the plaintiff to safeguard the appellant's interest.
Issues: Paternity dispute, DNA test, Prima facie evidence, Interim relief, Deposit condition
Ratio Decidendi: The court can grant interim relief, including a DNA test, based on prima facie evidence and the interest of justice. The court may impose conditions to safeguard the interests of the parties involved.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's order was upheld. The court imposed a condition for the deposit of a certain amount by the plaintiff to safeguard the appellant's interest.
JUDGMENT :
Dr. A.P. Thaker, J.
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 6.3.2019 passed by learned Family Court at Ahmedabad in the Family Suit No. 1918 of 2016, whereby the appellant is directed to undergo DNA test, the appellant has preferred present appeal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff i.e. respondent no. 1 has instituted Family Suit No. 1918 of 2016 alleging that the appellant herein, who is defendant no. 1 in the suit is biological father of plaintiff, who has born from the relationship of defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2. It is also alleged that defendant no. 2 Manjulaben got married with one Shri Bhimjibhai, who has died on 7.5.1979 and who happens to be the first husband of Manjulaben, mother of the plaintiff. It is also alleged that after the death of Bhimjibhai, first husband of defendant no. 2-Manjulaben, she got married with Amrutlal, defendant no. 1, as per the Hindu rituals at Mahakali Temple, Dudheshwar, Ahmedabad, and thereafter they were living as husband and wife openly in the society. It is also alleged that out of said wedlock with Amrutlal, Manjulaben gave birth to present plaintiff on 23.5.1981. It is also alleged that the plaintiff was living happily with his mother and father and defendant no. 1 was also visiting Sujan Bungalows at Shreyas Foundation, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad, where other members of the family were residing. It is also contended that defendant no. 1 being natural father of the plaintiff, he was represented as son of defendant no. 1 in the school where he was studying and also applied for certificate of Socially and Economically Backward Class. He was also shown as family member in the ration card. It is also alleged that defendant no. 1 all throughout accepted the plaintiff as son in all the documents, wherein name of defendant no. 1 has been mentioned as the father of the plaintiff. It is also alleged that present defendant no. 1 has also accepted Gitaben, sister of present plaintiff as his daughter, who happens to be daughter of earlier husband of Smt. Manjulaben. It is also alleged that defendant no. 1 also attended various ceremonies of relatives of the plaintiff. It is alleged that suddenly defendant no. 1 has refused to enter the name of present plaintiff as a member of his family in family directory of Mevada Dotor Community, as also refused to recognize present plaintiff as son, due to that he has filed present suit.
2.2. It appears that, after hearing both the sides, learned Judge of the Family Court has passed the order directing defendant no. 1 to undergo DNA test as prayed for by the plaintiff.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with above order, defendant no. 1 has filed this appeal, inter alia, contending that the plaintiff has not produced any prima facie proof that he is son of the appellant-defendant no. 1. It is also contended that defendant no. 2 is having three siblings and only the plaintiff has filed the suit. It is also contended that plaintiff's mother was duly married with Shri Bhimjibhai. It is also contended that no one can be compelled to give sample of blood for analysis. It is also contended that same prayer has been asked for in the suit itself and if the prayer in the nature of interim relief is granted then it will amount to passing the decree at interim stage
Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convener Secretary
Banarasi Dass v. Teeku Dutta and Another : (2005) 4 SCC 449.
Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal and Another : (1993) 3 SCC 418.
Badri Prasad Jhari v. Seeta Jharia : II (2017) DMC 385 MP
Sunil Eknath Trambake v. Leelavati Sunil Trambake : AIR 2006 Bom 140
Haribhai Chanabhai Vora v. Keshubhai Haribhai Vora : AIR 2005 Guj 157
Davu Gopal Lunani v. Sri Siva Gopal Lunani and Others : AIR 2014 AP 29
Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra : AIR 2004 SC 1975
Mohd. Mehtab Khan and Others v. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan and Others : (2013) 9 SCC 221.
Purshottam Vishandas Raheja and Another v. Shrichand Vishandas Raheja : (2011) 6 SCC 73.
Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy : AIR 2015 SC 418.
Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal : 1993 (2) GLH 996.
Parshottamdas Vishadas Raheja and Another v. Shrichand Vishandas Raheja : (2011) 6 SCC 73
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.