K. Ramakrishnan, J.

This is an application filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order passed by the Family Court, Muvattupuzha, in C.M.P. No. 33/2015 in M.C. No. 94/2014 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner and first respondent are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 16.05.2005 and a son was born to them in that wedlock. Later their marital relationship has been irrecoverably broken down and they were living separately and she was leading an adulterous life with one Kamaruddeen. 2nd respondent is the child born on 22.01.2013 to the first respondent in the said Kamaruddeen. Petitioner filed application for divorce on the ground of adultery and also another petition for declaring the paternity of the 2nd respondent and another petition for getting the custody of the son, who is admittedly born to him in that wedlock. It is thereafter that the first respondent filed a petition for getting maintenance for her and her two children as Ext. P1. The petitioner filed Ext. P2 objection denying his liability to pay maintenance to the 2nd respondent alone. During the pendency of this petition, he filed Ext. P3 petition as C.M.P. No. 33/2015 in M.C. No. 94/2014 for conducting DNA (Deoxyribo Nucleic Acid) test to find out the paternity of the 2nd respondent. First respondent filed Ext. P4 objection. After considering the contentions raised by both sides, learned family court judge by Ext. P5 impugned order dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed.

3. Heard Sri. Alias M. Cherian, counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Shylaja, counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, merely because they are living under the same roof does not mean that he had cohabitation with the first respondent. The presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act can be rebutted only by adducing scientific evidence for which DNA test is a must. The court below according to him had wrongly interpreted the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to deny the prayer.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, the child was born in the year 2013 and till 03.09.2014 when she left the matrimonial home, they were living under the same roof. He had not raised any objection regarding the paternity of the child. So the court below was perfectly justified in dismissing the application.

6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner married the first respondent in the year 2005 and admittedly a male child was born to them in that wedlock. It is also in away admitted that during the subsistence of marriage, the first respondent became pregnant again and delivered a female child on 22.01.2013, but the petitioner is not admitting the paternity of that child. According to him, the first respondent was having illicit connection with one Kamaruddeen and as a result of that illicit relationship she became pregnant and delivered the female child and when this was known to him, their relationship strained. According to the petitioner, the first respondent went for delivery and delivered the child from her parental house from a hospital and his name was shown in the birth certificate of the 2nd child as given by the first respondent and her family members and he was not aware of the same as well. It is also in away admitted that from 03.09.2014 onwards they were living separately. But according to the petitioner after she went for delivery, she did not come back. These are all matter for evidence.

7. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner filed O.P. No. 453/2014 for divorce before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha, on the ground of adultery and he had also filed O.P. No. 452/2014 for declaring the paternity of the second respondent that he is not the father of the 2nd respondent and that is also pending before that court. He had also filed O.P. No. 451/2014 before th