SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(Raj) 403

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
S.C.Agrawal, J.
Ramchandra - Appellant
Versus
Mst. Bhuri - Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 321 of 1975.
Decided On : 28-09-1979

The court has inherent powers to give a direction to a party to allow a sample of blood being taken from his or her person for the purpose of testing. However, the court cannot direct a person to undergo a blood test against his or her consent.

Headnote:

BLOOD TEST - PATERNITY - SECTION 112 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT - INTEREST OF THE CHILD - [SECTION 112 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 20 OF THE FAMILY LAW REFORMS ACT, 1969 (ENGLAND)]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Ramchander, filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery. The petitioner alleged that the respondent had given birth to two children although he had never had sexual intercourse with her. The respondent denied the allegations and pleaded that both children were begotten by the petitioner. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner filed an application seeking directions to the respondent to permit samples of blood being taken from her person and from both the children for the purpose of testing to establish the paternity of the children.

Finding of the Court:

The District Judge rejected the application on the grounds that (1) blood grouping does not provide a positive test that the children are or are not of the petitioner, and (2) the respondent cannot be compelled to submit to such test. The petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the order of the District Judge.

Issues: 1. Whether blood grouping can be used to establish paternity? 2. Whether the court can direct a party to a proceeding to allow a sample of blood being taken from his or her person for the purpose of testing? 3. Whether a direction can be given by the court for taking the sample of blood of a minor child in cases where the paternity of the child is in issue?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Blood grouping can be used to establish that a particular man is not the father of a particular child, but it cannot be used to prove that a particular man is the father of a particular child. 2. The court has no power to direct a person to undergo a blood test against his or her consent. However, the court can give a direction to a party to allow a sample of blood being taken from his or her person for the purpose of testing in exercise of its inherent powers. If the person so directed unreasonably refuses to allow the sample of blood being taken from his or her person, the court can treat his or her refusal as evidence against him or her and draw an inference therefrom. 3. A direction can be given by the court for taking the sample of blood of a minor child in cases where the paternity of the child is in issue only if the ordering of the blood test would be of any possible benefit to the child.

Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed. The court held that although the District Judge was not right in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for the reasons given by him in his orders, the said application of the petitioner could not be allowed for the reasons mentioned above.

JUDGMENT

1. - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, Ramchander, against the order dated 27th February, 1975, passed by the, District Judge, Sri Ganganagar, whereby. the District Judge rejected the application filed by the petitioner far directions regarding obtaining the sample of the blood of the respondent and her two children for the purpose of testing to establish the paternity of the children. The facts relating to the filing of the revision petition are briefly as under :

2. The petitioner and the respondent were married to each other in 1959. During the course of the wedlock, two children were been to the respondent, one in October, 1970 and the other in January, 1973. On 2nd June, 1973, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent in the court of District Judge, Sri Ganganagar for dissolution of the marriage on the ground that respondent had committed adultery. In the aforesaid petition, the petitioner has pleaded that respondent had given birth to two children although the petitioner had never any access to the respondent and bad never had sexual intercourse with her. The averments contained in the said petition have been denied by the respondent in her written statements who has pleaded that both the children were begotten by the petitioner. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner on 23rd August, 1974, filed an application before the District Judge, wherein he submitted that the paternity of the two children can be established by the blood grouping of the petitioner and the respondent and the two children, at d he, therefore, prayed that direction may be given to the respondent to permit samples of blood being taken from her person and from both the children for the purpose of having the same tested for the purpose of blood grouping. The said application was opposed by the respondent on the ground that blood grouping cannot conclusively establish that the two children were not begotten by the petitioner. The learned District Judge, by his order dated 27th February, 1975, rejected the said application filed by the petitioner on the following two grounds:

(1) Blood grouping does not provide a positive test that the children are or are not of the petitioner.

(2) The respondent cannot be compelled to submit to such test. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the District Judge, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

3. Shri Rajendra Mehta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has challenged the correctness of both the aforesaid grounds given by the learned District judge for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel has submitted that according to the medical science, an examination of the blood groups of the parents and children can conclusively establish that the child could not be begotten by the parents. As regards the second ground giver, by the leaned District judge for rejecting the application, the learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the respondent cannot be compelled to submit to a test but he submits that the court can direct the respondent to submit to a test and in case she refused to comply with the said direction, an adverse inference can be drawn against her.

4. Text books on Medical jurisprudence show that the rapid progress in the study of different blood groups has revealed that no blood group antigen can appear in a child unless it is present in either or both of the parents and that an antigen from a homozygon blood group must appear in the blood of a child and, therefore, blood grouping tests afford a reliable objective evidence in disputed paternity cases has stated :

"In one specific biological trait, viz-blood-group, scientific opinion is now in, accord- accepting the fact that there is a causative relation between the trait of the progenitor and the trait of the progeny. In other words, the blood composition of a child may be some evidence as to th






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top