V.K. Bali, C.J.

Janaki. K.M., it appears is striving to be called a legitimate and legally wedded wife of Gopalan Nair. She was also clamouring for her daughter to have a name of her father so that child, a female, is not called illegitimate. This effort she is making for a long time, it appears, primarily to do away the social stigma which is haunting her and her daughter. In her pursuit to achieve the desired result she, prior in point of time, filed a petition under section 125 of the code of criminal procedure, which was however dismissed for default in 1992. She then filed a petition Ext.P3 dated 24.4.2000 before the Kerala Women's commission claiming that her husband had deserted her and her daughter. She claimed a declaration being that her female child was the legitimate daughter of the husband. Gopalan Nair appeared before the Commission and filed a counter statement. He was then served with notice Ext.P5 directing him to appear for DNA test on 3.3.2003. He challenged the order aforesaid by filling O.P.No.6577 of 2003 which has been dismissed. The order of the learned single Judge has been questioned by Gopalan Nair, hereinafter referred to as " the petitioner", by filing W.A.No.2314 of 2004.

2. Smt. Reena @ Sindhu likewise is endeavoring to be called a legitimate daughter of Joseph, primarily in pursuit of the same cause as guided Janaki. K.M. to be called as legitimate wife of Gopalan Nair. In pursuit of her goal she approached the Kerala Women's Commission by filing Ext.P3 petition stating that she was living for ten years with her mother, who was an adivasi and that out of the wedlock between Joseph and her mother an adivasi woman, she was born. Joseph, hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner' was disowning her paternity and it is in that context that she prayed to the Commission to hold a DNA test of the petitioner to establish the blood relationship between him and her. The Women's Commission held enquiry after issuing notice to the petitioner. When the Commission, however, ordered DNA test, he filed original petition bearing Judge vide orders dated 24th June, 2004. It is against this order of the learned single Judge that the petitioner has filed W.A.No.1761 of 2004.

3. Both these appeals were clubbed together. Common arguments have been raised. Thus, this common judgment.

4. As before the learned single Judge so also before us, the order passed by the Women's Commission for holding DNA test is challenged on twin grounds, namely that the Women's Commission under the provision contained in the Kerala Women's Commission Act, 1990, hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1990" would have no jurisdictions to order DNA test and that in no circumstances the petitioners can be compelled to undergo DNA test.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the records of the case. Before we might proceed any further, we would like to mention that petitioner in O.P.No.6577 of 2003 had agreed to the suggestion made by the Women's Commission for DNA test and the Commission recorded its willingness for the same. It is a different matter that he later backed out from his recorded willingness for holding DNA test.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants while making a reference to the definition of "unfair practice" contained in section 2(i) of the Act of 1990 which is reproduced below, contends that denial of the relationship, as alleged by the appellants, would not be an unfair practice:

(i) "unfair practice" means any distinction exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex for the purpose of or which has the effect of impaining or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by woman of fundamental constitutional right, or human right, or of fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other filed or the infringment of the provisions of any law for the time being in force or the mental or physical torture or sexual excess on women.”

7. This conten