The legal point established is that the rules governing the impleading of necessary parties and the admissibility of evidence should be applied to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is against the divorce decree dated 13-2-2002 passed by the learned addl. District Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh in divorce Case No. 14/98. The trial Court dismissed the divorce petition on the ground that the appellant-applicant sought divorce on the ground of, respondents living adulterous life but the appellant-applicant did not implead the person against whom, according to the applicant, the respondent had illicit relations.

( 3 ) IT will be worthwhile to mention here that in the trial Court, the applicant-appellant prayed for DNA test of the appellant and his wife-respondent and respondents son chiku which was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 2-8-2000 because the respondent also gave her consent for the DNA test of herself and her son. A letter was issued by the Court to the Centre for DNA finger-printing and Diagnostics, which is an autonomous Centre of the Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and technology, Govt. of India. In pursuance of the directions of the Court the appellant-applicant deposited the requisite amount for the said DNA test and paid the expenses for respondent and respondents son so that their blood may be examined by the said dna Diagnostic Centre. The said Centre gave report along with forwarding letter dated 4-12-2000 that the appellant is not biological father of child Chiku. When the appellant-applicant tried to tender in evidence the said dna report, an objection was raised by the respondent for tendering the document in evidence. The trial Court observed that the report is not prepared or signed by the appellant and, therefore, cannot be tendered in evidence and consequently the document was not admitted in evidence.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the appellant, the marriage of the appellant and respondent took place when they were of the age of 4 or 5 years. The respondent-wife came to the house of the applicant-appellant after about 17-18 years and no physical relationship established between the applicant and the non-applicant at any point of time. It is stated that the non-applicant remained in the house of the applicant for two days only and at that time the applicant was sick and otherwise also he had no physical relation with the respondent. In the year 1998, the appellant came to know that the respondent gave birth to one child. Since the appellant was sure that the child was not his, therefore, he filed the divorce petition on the ground of respondents living adulterous life and giving birth to a child of other person. However, in the application there is no mention of name of any person with whom the respondent, according to the appellant, had physical relations and about the person who, according to the appellant, is the father of the child Chiku.

( 5 ) THE respondent submitted reply to the divorce petition and denied the appellants contention that the marriage of the appellant and respondent took place when they were minor. She stated that the child is of the appellant and the allegation of bad character upon the respondent is absolutely false. However, no objection was raised by the respondent in reply to the divorce petition that the divorce petition is not maintainable due to non-impleading the necessary party, the person with whom the appellant is alleging the relation with the respondent.

( 6 ) IN the trial Court, oral evidence was produced by both the parties but as stated above, the relevant documentary evidence was not permitted to be even tendered in evidence. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the DNA report is a public document and, therefore, mere its tendering in evidence, would have been sufficient and if the appellant would have been permitted to tender in evidence the DNA report, the appellant could have proved the fact that the respondent gave birth to a child which is not of his and that would have been the final proof in favour of the appellan