This revision is by the second respondent in I.A.No.32 of 2008 in H.M.O.P.No.2 of 2008 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Arni, Tiruvannamalai District.

2. 1st respondent married the 2nd respondent on 9.2.1981 according to Hindu rites and customs. 1st respondent (husband) was an S.I. of Police. On 13.4.86, a daughter (revision petitioner) was born. She is the revision petitioner.

3. In 2008, 1st respondent was 53 years old, while 2nd respondent, was 43 years old. Revision Petitioner was 22 years old. She was to be married. Difference of opinion arose between the respondents (spouses). 1st respondent/husband alleged that the 2nd respondent/wife had crossed the fence. 2nd respondent filed counter denouncing his allegation.

4. 1st respondent filed I.A.No.32 of 2008 that as he has doubted the very birth of the revision petitioner to him, he wanted to subject his wife, and the revision petitioner to undergo DNA test, in other words, paternity test. The 2nd respondent and the revision petitioner were shocked by this bombshell. They have resented on the move of the 1st respondent.

5. Upon hearing both sides, the Sub Court, Arni allowed the petition and ordered the conducting of DNA test. It necessarily involves the taking of blood samples from the respondents and the revision petitioner.

6. The reasoning of the learned Subordinate Judge in ordering the D.N.A. test could be found from the following passage in the impugned order passed by the trial Court:

''Now the petitioner is suspect the legality and biological birth of the second respondent. If the doubt is arises it would be detected by the scientific method to save the integrity and trustworthy in the matrimonial home. No one bear the thorn in his chest throughout her life regarding the paternity of the second respondent. The legal steps is alone is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of conscience of the petitioner. If the petition is allowed there is no prejudice will be caused to the respondent. Because, the result is stands with truth it is good for the parties, and averment to the hormonious life in future. Therefore, the petition is allowed for D.N.A test. The petitioner, first respondent, and second respondent are directed to submit for the test to find out truth” (emphasis supplied by me)

7. Aggrieved, the revision petitioner, has directed this revision.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the revision petitioner is the daughter of the respondents. She was born to them during the period they lived as husband and wife. In such circumstances, the conclusive proof prescribed in Section 112 of the Evidence Act shuts the mouth of the 1st respondent from speaking otherwise, as to the birth of the revision petitioner to him.

9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further contend that it is too atrocious to ask the revision petitioner, now a married woman and a mother to undergo DNA test.

10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would also submit that it will be in violation of her right to privacy. It is as against her right to live with human dignity and decency.

11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would also contend that no Court could violate the human right of a woman.

12. To carry home his point of view, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would cite Bhabani Prasad Jena vs. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women and another (2010(8) SCC 633).

13. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further contend that the revision petitioner is not a party to the matrimonial dispute between her parents. She has been unnecessarily dragged into their fight. The impugned order will result in causing incalculable damage to her and it will also affect her family life.

14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent would contend that the 1st respondent is asking divorce also on the ground of adulterous conduct of the revision petitioner's mother (2n