R. Narayana Pisharadi, J.

“Truth must triumph” is the hallmark of justice. When truth is known there is no need or room for any presumption. A presumption cannot prevail over truth of a fact established by science. (Nandlal Vasudeo Badwaik v. Lata, AIR 2014 SC 932).

2. The petitioner is the former husband of the respondent. The petitioner filed O.P.No.277/2016 in the Family Court for a decree of declaration that he is not the father of the girl child born to the respondent.

3. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was on 01.11.1999. A girl child was born to the respondent on 06.08.2008. The plea of the petitioner, in the Original Petition filed before the Family Court, is that he had no cohabitation with the respondent and that the child born to the respondent is not his daughter. It is also alleged by the petitioner that the respondent had told him that he is not the father of the child. The petitioner divorced the respondent on 26.03.2010 by pronouncing ‘talaq’.

4. The petitioner filed an application as I.A.No.593/2016 in the Family Court praying that DNA test may be conducted to prove the paternity of the child born to the respondent. The respondent filed objection to the application denying the allegations raised by the petitioner. She asserted that she is ready to conduct DNA test, provided the petitioner would file an undertaking to the effect that he shall pay an amount of Rss.25,00,000/- as compensation, if the result of the test goes against him. The respondent also filed an application I.A.No.1620/2016 to issue direction to the petitioner to undergo potency test to ascertain that he had no physical disability to perform sexual intercourse during the relevant period.

5. As per Ext.P4 order, the Family Court dismissed both the applications, I.A. No. 593/2016 and I.A.No.1620/2016. The petitioner challenges the order of the Family Court dismissing the application I.A.No.593/2016 filed by him.

6. Notice was served on the respondent. But she has not chosen to enter appearance. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. The petitioner is the former husband of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnised on 01.11.1999. A girl child was born to the respondent on 06.08.2008. The petitioner divorced the respondent on 26.03.2010 by pronouncing ‘talaq’. There is no dispute with regard to these facts.

8. The respondent had filed M.C.No.39/2010 in the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Alappuzha under S.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking various reliefs against the petitioner, including maintenance to the child. An order was passed by that court in M.C.No.39/2010 directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent and the child at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month and Rs.2,000/- per month, respectively. The petitioner had filed Crl.A.No.257/2016 in the Sessions Court, Alappuzha challenging that order. In the memorandum of appeal filed in that case, the petitioner did not raise a plea that the child born to the respondent is not his daughter.

9. The respondent had filed O.P.No.1332/2013 against the petitioner in the Family Court seeking return of gold ornaments and other reliefs. When the petitioner was examined as a witness in that case, a specific question was put to him in the cross-examination, whether he had denied paternity of the child in the case M.C.No.39/2010. The petitioner answered that question by saying that, in that case, he had not denied paternity of the child. But he had stated that, he expressed willingness to look after the respondent and the daughter considering the welfare of the daughter. In response to a specific question put to him during the cross-examination in O.P.No.1332/2013 the petitioner also stated that, he had no sexual relationship with the respondent from the time of the marriage till their estrangement in the year 2009.

10. The Family Court found that the absence of a plea by the petitioner in M.C. No. 39/2010 and in Crl.A.N