Result of a genuine D.M.A. test is said to be scientifically accurate.

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.202/2001 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Arni are the revision petitioners.

2. The revision petitioners as plaintiffs have filed the suit against the respondent herein, showing him as defendant, for maintenance. The first plaintiff claims that she is the legally wedded wife of the defendant and their marriage has been solemnised, according to the Hindu custom and rites, in the presence of the elders, on 17.10.1985. It is the further case of the revision petitioners, that the second plaintiff, by name Sonia (minor) is the child born to the first plaintiff and the defendant, due to their joint living as husband and wife, in pursuance of the above said marriage.

3. The plaintiffs and defendant are not living jointly. The plaintiffs are the residents of Ambedkar Nagar, Arni Town, Thiruvannamalai District. The defendant is living at Arakonam Railway Quarters, since it appears he is employed in the Railways. The plaintiffs/revision petitioners accusing the respondent/defendant, as if he had deserted the wife and child about 12 years ago, failed to provide maintenance, despite having means, whereas they have no means of their own, for survival, have filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1000/- as maintenance, for the first plaintiff/wife and for the recovery of a sum of Rs.500/- per month, towards maintenance of the second plaintiff/daughter, in addition praying for a charge to be created, over the properties described in the plaint, which belong to the respondent/defendant.

4. The suit is opposed by the respondent/defendant contending, that there was no marriage between the first plaintiff and the defendant, that the second plaintiff is not the daughter of the defendant, born through the first plaintiff, that elsewhere in 1986, for some time, there was some illegal relationship between the first plaintiff and the defendant and that at present the defendant is married to another lady and as such, he is not bound to maintain or provide maintenance, to the plaintiffs legally.

5. In the written statement itself, the defendant has stated that he is ready to undergo for DNA test, to ascertain the paternity of the second plaintiff. When the trial was in progress, after examining some witnesses also, the defendant filed a petition under Order XXVI Rule 10(a) r/w Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking direction from the Court, to test the D.N.A. of the defendant and the second plaintiff, in order to ascertain the paternity of the second plaintiff. The application was opposed mainly on the ground, that the petition was filed belatedly, after the examination of the witnesses and that in view of the presumption available under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, there is no need to undergo DNA test, as claimed.

6. The learned District Munsif, appreciating the rival claims of the parties, as well as the pleadings in the plaint and the written statement, felt that if DNA test is performed, that will be of much helpful to decide the paternity of the second plaintiff. In this view, the learned trial Judge allowed the application on 9.4.2003, which is challenged in this revision.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. V. Raghavachari and the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. P. Valliappan.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits,

(i) that in view of the presumption available under the Indian Evidence Act, DNA test is not at all necessary, to decide the paternity of the second plaintiff, which could be decided on the basis of the evidence already recorded.

(ii) that a minor child cannot be compelled to DNA test and put to torture by giving blood, under the cover of DNA test, which is protected under the Constitution of India also.

9. Opposing the above contentions, the learned counsel for the respondent submits, that the presumption contemplated under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, is not available to the second plaintiff in this case, since the all