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

2008 Supreme(Mad) 1382

K.VENKATARAMAN
Veeran – Appellant
Versus
Veeravarmalle & Another – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:R. Natarajan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:K.S. Elangovan, Advocate.

Judgment :-

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 or























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

T. Nagaraj VS Sumathi - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 4072: This case (Veeravarmalle and another) is cited in the provided text as "I have held that the order of the Family Court in directing the parties to undergo medical test will not ...", indicating it is being referenced or relied upon by the court in its reasoning. No negative treatment indicated.

Harjinder Kaur VS State Of Punjab - 2012 0 Supreme(P&H) 1869: This entry cites "Veeravarmalle and Another, AIR 2009 Mad 64" positively, discussing its holding on DNA tests ("the father was directed to undergo DNA test and it was observed that it cannot be said to be affecting"). It appears to reference the case approvingly in the context of judicial treatment on accuracy and nature of DNA tests.

T. Nagaraj VS Sumathi - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 4072 and (cross-reference): Both entries appear to discuss the same underlying case (Veeravarmalle and Another / Veeran vs., potentially 2009 (1) CTC 141 or AIR 2009 Mad 64, with some overlap or confusion in naming like "Veeravarmalle" and "Veeran"). The text shows citation and discussion but no explicit treatment keywords (e.g., followed, overruled). The phrase "I have held that" in T. Nagaraj VS Sumathi - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 4072 suggests the current decision is aligning with or applying it, but treatment is implicit rather than stated. Placed here due to lack of clear indicators like "followed" or "distinguished"; no evidence of bad law.

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top