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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2376

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI
Arimuthu (Died) – Appellant
Versus
Alamelu – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: P.T. Sundari
For the Respondent: B. Jawahar

ORDER :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

1. The defendants in a suit for partition, aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court ordering DNA Test are the revision petitioners.

2. I have heard Mrs.P.T.Sundari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.B.Jawahar, learned counsel for the first respondent. I have also gone through the records, including the impugned order.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the Trial Court erred in directing the petitioners to undergo a DNA Test along with respondents 2 & 3. She would submit that the respondents were only attempting to fish for evidence and the Courts cannot be a party to such exercise. She would further submit that compelling the petitioners to undergo DNA Test was against public policy and fundamental rights granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India more specifically Article including 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would place reliance on the following decisions:-

(i) Aparna Ajinkya Firodia Vs. Ajinkya Aurn Firodia , reported in (2024) 7 SCC 773 ;

(ii) Sukhdev Singh and others Vs. Jaswinder Kaur , reported in CR. No.432 of 2019.

(iii) Ashok Kumar Vs. Raj Gupta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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