The court established that ordering a D.N.A. Test in a paternity dispute does not violate fundamental rights and is within the court's discretion.

This revision is directed against the order of the learned Judge of the Family Court at Puducherry, dated 07.03.2007 made in I.A.No.59 of 2007 in O.S.No.14 of 2006.

2. The first defendant in the above referred suit is the petitioner herein, plaintiff thereon is the first respondent and the second defendant being the second respondent in this revision.

3. The first respondent herein had laid the suit against the petitioner and the second respondent herein before the Family Court at Puducherry for declaration that she is the legitimate child born to her parents, viz., the petitioner and the second respondent herein. In the said suit, the first respondent has taken out an application in I.A.No.59 of 2007 for directing the petitioner herein to cause appearance and admission with the petition specified institute for the purpose of D.N.A. examination and test or any other medical examination and test and to further direct the said institute to cause the said test and to file consequent report to the Court. The said application was allowed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Puducherry, by his order dated 07.03.2007 and the present revision is directed against the said order.

4. The first respondent in her application referred to above, has set out that her mother viz., the second respondent herein was set exparte and the petitioner / father had totally denied her legal relationship with him as a legitimate daughter born to him. Since it is a total denial of legal relationship, the first respondent had no other option than to go for a D.N.A. Test to prove that the petitioner herein alone is the father. She has expressed her willingness to submit herself physically for any kind of medical and scientific test for the said purpose.

5. The said application was resisted by the petitioner herein by filing a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the petitioner herein has stated that the application is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed in limini. He has further denied the relationship between himself and the first respondent herein. It is his further case that he cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself.

6. The Court below, considering the claim and the counter claim, allowed the application preferred by the first respondent herein. As stated already, the said order is under challenge in this revision.

7. The first and foremost submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that since the factum of marriage of the second respondent with one Ramu is not controverted and not denied by the first respondent, the question of undergoing D.N.A. Test for the purpose of determining the paternity of the first respondent does not arise. The second submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Court below illegally exercised its discretion thereby directing the petitioner herein for subjecting himself alone for D.N.A. Test without any sort of such test on the second respondent, who had already married with one Ramu, which is totally untenable and illegal. The third submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Court below erroneously allowed the claim of the first respondent subjecting himself for D.N.A. Test without similar prayer from the side of the first respondent for herself and for the second respondent herein. The fourth submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty and no person can be compelled to be a witness as against himself. Thus, compelling a person to undergo D.N.A. Test is an act, which goes against the invasion of a private right of the petitioner.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that to prove the paternity, D.N.A. Test is the only scientific test, which is available for the first respondent herein to prove her case. The second submission of the learned counsel appearing for the fi