The instant Cr. Revision is directed against the order dated 23.7.2009 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in M.P. Case No. 68 of 2004 by which a petition filed on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 Babita Devi @ Babali for the D.N.A test of her daughter i.e. petitioner No.2 Sejal comparing with the D.N.A of O.P. No.2 Aditya Chourasia to establish that he was her father was rejected.

2. The short fact related to the present case is that the petitioner No. 1 is the legally married wife of the O.P. No. 2 Aditya Chourasia as their marriage was solemnized on 29.2.2000 in accordance with the Hindu rites and customs. The opposite party No.2 Aditya Chourasia filed a Title Suit (M) No. 385 of 2005 under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was concluded in the declaration of their marriage as nullity vide judgment dated 15.12.2004. Against that order the petitioner filed First Appeal No. 16 of 2005 before this Court which was admitted on 4.1 .2007 and the judgment passed on. 15.12.2004 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad was stayed. It was further stated by the petitioner No. 1 that after her marriage with the O.P. No.2 Aditya Chourasia she started living at her matrimonial home and enjoyed conjugal marital life with her husband. From consummation of their marriage a female child was born namely Sejal (petitioner No.2) on 14.3.2001 in the Central Hospital, Dhanbad.

3. In the meantime, the petitioner No. 1 with her daughter Sejal filed a petition claiming their maintenance and thereby proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was initiated. The husband-opposite party No. 2 appeared in the said proceeding but in the causes shown by him he asserted that at no point of time he established sexual relation with the petitioner No.1 after their marriage since he had no access to her and she did not allow him for consummation and therefore, the female child (petitioner No.2) was not born from him. He further asserted that prior to her marriage with him, the petitioner No. 1 was married with another person namely San jay Kumar Gupta and the minor child was born from their wedlock to which the assertion was strongly controverted by the petitioner No. 1 and she contended that the O.P. No.2 was the father of her minor daughter and for proving the same she filed a petition for DNA test of her female child Sejal comparing her D.N.A with the D.N.A of O.P. No.2 so as to establish the latter's paternity and for that the petitioner No. 1 expressed her willingness to deposit the cost of such tests.

4. Mrs. Vandana Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed the impugned order dated 23.7.2009 recorded by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad on the ground that the prayer of the petitioner No.1 was rejected considering the statements of the petitioner No.1 recorded in a Wfferent complaint case No. 1147 of 2002 wherein she testified that after her marriage with the O.P. No.2 she went to her matrimonial home where her first husband Sanjay Kumar Gupta came and claimed her to be his wife and from there she was taken away by Sanjay Kumar Gupta to his own house where he started living with her as husband and wife and that she conceived from Sanjay Kumar Gupta. Mrs. Singh, the learned counsel, further submitted that the petitioner No.1 had categorically explained in this regard that her statement was recorded when she was under the custody and influence of the O.P. No.2 and the member of his family where she was forced and coerced to file a complaint against Sanjay Kumar Gupta and whatever statement was delivered by her in the complaint, it were under the pressure and duress of Aditya Chourasia and the same was not voluntary.

5. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad observed in the impugned order that the petitioner No. 1 had filed a complaint case against Sanjay Kumar Gupta on 5.9.2002 and her statement on solemn affirmation was recorded wherein she had given her address, which was the address of