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

2014 Supreme(Raj) 31

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik Vs. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (Prasad, J.)
HON'BLE CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.
HON'BLE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.
Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik
Versus
Lata Nandlal Badwaik & Anr.
Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2014 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.8852 of 2008), decided on 06.01.2014

Headnote:(a) Evidence Act, 1872, Sec. 112 — Presumption as to paternity of child — DNA test — Results of DNA test are scientifically accurate — Prevails over presumption of conclusive proof u/Sec. 112. (Paras 17, 18)

        ¼d½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872] /kkjk 112 & cPps ds fir`Ro lEcU/kh mi/kkj.kk & Mh,u, VsLV & Mh,u, VsLV dk ifj.kke oSKkfud :i ls lgh gS & /kkjk 112 ds rgr fu"d"kkZRed lcwr dh mi/kkj.kk ij vfHkokoh gksrk gSA ¼in la-17] 18½

       (b) Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 125 — Maintainance claim made by wife and daughter — Husband denied paternity of daughter — Husband unable to prove non-access to wife — DNA Test showing that appellant was not her biological father — Held — Appellant cannot be compelled to bear fatherhood of daughter who is scientifically not his. (Para 19)

       Appeal allowed.

        ¼[k½ na-iz-la-] 1973] /kkjk 125 & iRuh o iqf=;ksa }kjk fd;k x;k Hkj.k iks"k.k dk nkok & ifr us iq=h ds fir`Ro ls badkj fd;k 𝔦 ;g lkfcr djus esa foQy jgk fd iRuh rd mldh igqap ugha Fkh & ;g n'kkZus okyk Mh,u, VsLV fd vihykFkhZ mldk tSfod firk ugha Fkk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & iq=h dk fir`Ro ogu djus gsrq vihykFkhZ dks etcwj ugha fd;k tk ldrk] tks oSKkfud :i ls mldk ugha gSA ¼in la[;k 19½

       vihy Lohdkj dhA

       

Hon'ble PRASAD, J.—Petitioner happens to be the husband of respondent no. 1, Lata Nandlal Badwaik and alleged to be the father of girl child Netra alias Neha Nandlal Badwaik, respondent no. 2, herein. The marriage between them was solemnized on 30th of June, 1990 at Chandrapur. Wife filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the same was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by order dated 10th December, 1993. Thereafter, the wife resorted to a fresh proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) claiming maintenance for herself and her daughter, inter alia, alleging that she started living with her husband from 20th of June, 1996 and stayed with him for about two years and during that period got pregnant. She was sent for delivery at her parents’ place where she gave birth to a girl child, the respondent no. 2 herein. Petitioner-husband resisted the claim and alleged that the assertion of the wife that she stayed with him since 20th of June, 1996 is false. He denied that respondent no. 2 is his daughter. After 1991, according to the husband, he had no physical relationship with his wife. The learned Magistrate accepted the plea of the wife and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.900/- per month to the wife and at the rate of Rs.500/- per month to the daughter. The challenge to the said order in revision has failed so also a petition under Section 482 of the Code, challenging those orders.

2. It is against these orders, the petitioner has preferred this special leave petition.

3. Leave granted.

4. Taking note of the challenge to the paternity of the child, this Court by order dated 10th of January, 2011 passed the following order:

“…………However, the petitioner-husband had challenged the paternity of the child and had claimed that no maintenance ought to have been awarded to the child. The petitioner had also applied for referring the child for DNA test, which was refused. It is against the said order of refusal that the present Special Leave was filed and the same prayer for conducting the DNA test was made before us. On 8th November, 2010 we had accordingly, directed the petitioner-husband to deposit all dues, both arrear and current, in respect of the maintenance awarded to the wife and child to enable us to consider the prayer for holding of such DNA test. Such deposit having been made on 3rd January, 2011, we had agreed to allow the petitioner’s prayer for conducting DNA test for ascertaining the paternity of the child.

We have since been informed by counsel for the parties that a Forensic Science Laboratory in Nagpur conducts the very same test, as has been asked for, by the Petitioner. Accordingly, we direct the petitioner-Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik and the respondent No. 1-Ms. Lata Nandlal Badwaik to make a joint application to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Nagpur, situated at Jail Road, Dhantoli, for conducting such test. The petitioner, as well as the respondent No. 1, shall present themselves at the Laboratory with respondent No. 2 for the said purpose on the date to be fixed by the laboratory, and, thereafter, the laboratory is directed to send the result of such test to this Court within four weeks thereafter. The expenses for the test to be conducted shall be borne by the petitioner-husband.”

5. In the light of the aforesaid order, the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Nagpur has submitted the result of DNA testing and opined that appellant “Nandlal Vasudev Badwaik is excluded to be the biological father of Netra alias Neha Nandlal Badwaik”, respondent no. 2 herein.

6. Respondents, not being satisfied with the aforesaid report, made a request for re-test. The said prayer of the respondents was accepted and this Court by order dated 22nd of July, 2011 gave the following direction:

“Despite the fact that the report of the DNA Test conducted at the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, State of Maharashtra, Nagpur-12


































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