DNA test is only supporting evidence.

This revision is directed against the order of Subordinate Judge, Maduranthakam made in I.A.No. 763 of 2002 in H.M.O.P. No. 5 of 1999 dated 16.12.2002 dismissing the petition filed under Order XXVI, rule 10(9) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to appoint an expert and also for conducting scientific investigation - to conduct DNA test and other medical investigation to ascertain parentage of the female child born on 18.4.1999. Husband is the Revision Petitioner.

2. The Revision Petitioner/husband married the Respondent on 19.11.1995. The spouse were living together. Out of their lawful wed lock, a female child was born on 24.8.1996. Thereafter, the Respondent had given birth to a second female child on 18.4.1999. According to the Revision Petitioner/husband, after the birth of first female child in 1996, the Respondent had not returned back to the matrimonial house. She is alleged to have developed illicit intimacy with another person. According to the Revision Petitioner/husband, there was no cohabitation for nearly three years. Though the spouses were not living together for about three years, due to illicit intimacy, the Respondent conceived in November 1998. The second female child was born on 18.4.1999. Alleging that the Respondent/wife has been living in adultery and denying the paternity of the second female child, the Revision Petitioner/husband has filed H.M.O.P. No. 5 of 1999 under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce. He sought for divorce on the ground of adultery.

3. Denying the averments in the petition, the Respondent/wife had filed counter statement contending that both the children were born only to the Revision Petitioner/husband and that he was treating her cruelly and also ill-treating her. The Respondent has filed the counter statement specifically denying allegations in the petition. She has denied any relation with one Padmanabhan with whom she is alleged to have illicit intimacy.

4. I.A.No. 61 of 2000:- Earlier, the Revision Petitioner/husband has filed this petition to subject himself and also the Respondent/wife for DNA test. After full contest and enquiry on merits, the said petition was allowed. The Respondent/wife and the Petitioner/husband were directed to appear on 9.4.2002 and a report was submitted confirming the paternity.

5. I.A.No. 763 of 2002:- The Revision Petitioner/husband has filed this second application to determine the parentage of the second female child born on 18.4.1999. According to him, the earlier DNA Report confirming the paternity was obtained by the Respondent/wife influencing the scientific experts through one of her relatives, who is working in the Forensic Science Department. According to the Revision Petitioner/husband, if that report is taken into consideration, his contention in the main petition would be negatived. Hence, the Revision Petitioner/husband has filed this application to take three blood samples of the Respondent/wife and to send them for DNA testing to three different centres.

(a) Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology, Hyderabad. 500 007.

(b) Centre for D.N.A. Finger Printing & Diagnostics, Hyderabad 500 076.

(c) Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Culcutta 700 014.

6. The application was strongly resisted by the Respondent/wife referring to the earlier application in I.A.No.61 of 2000 wherein the application was allowed and the parties were subjected themselves for DNA test which confirmed the parentage of the female child. The respondent/wife has raised strong objection for subjecting to DNA test for the second time. According to her, the blood samples for DNA test to three different places would lead to complication and confusion and would result in conflict of results. It is alleged that the Respondent/wife cannot be compelled for test in three different places as alleged in the petition.

7. Upon consideration of contention of both parties, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application inter-alia finding that:-

(a) The content