Back
2014 Supreme(P&H) 1697
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
JASWANT SINGH, J.
DARSHAN SINGH – Appellant
Versus
AMARJIT SINGH – Respondent
CR Nos. 2614, 3104 of 2014
Decided on : 21-07-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate and L. Malhotra, Advocate
The judgment established the principle that in appropriate cases, the court can allow DNA tests to conclusively determine the parentage of a child, balancing the competing interests involved.
Headnote:
DNA Test - Paternity Dispute - Indian Evidence Act - Section 112, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - The court allowed the applications for conducting DNA test to determine the paternity of the plaintiff and his relationship with the defendants. The court relied on the provisions of Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act and the principles established in previous judgments to support the decision to conduct the DNA test.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration claiming to be the natural born son of the defendant. The court allowed the applications for conducting DNA test to determine the plaintiff's paternity and relationship with the defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case to show that he is the natural born son of the defendant, justifying the DNA test. The court also held that there was no bar for the trial court to allow evidence to be taken at the stage of rebuttal evidence/arguments.
Issues: Paternity dispute, admissibility of DNA test at a belated stage, relevance of father's name recorded in the court, and the inclusion of a non-party in the DNA test.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act and previous judgments to support the decision to conduct the DNA test. The court emphasized the need to protect the best interest of the child and the right to knowledge about natural parentage.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petitions, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioners.
JASWANT SINGH, J.
1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of both the aforementioned two Civil Revisions as they arise out of common order passed by the learned trial Court dated 25.03.2014, whereby the Court has allowed the applications of the plaintiff for conducting DNA test of plaintiff, defendant no. 1 (petitioner in CR No 2614 of 2014), defendants no 2, 3 and Swaran Kanta (who is petitioner in CR No. 3104 of 2014).
2. In brief facts of the case are that Amarjit Singh @ Surjit Singh @ Kaka Singh alleges himself to be son of Darshan Singh (defendant no. 1) and filed the present suit for declaration before the trial Court to the effect that he is son of Darshan Singh and that Amarjit Singh and Surjit Singh are one and the same person and further that he is entitled to get corrected his father's name as Darshan Singh instead of Darshan Lal in all the documents, certificates etc. A consequential relief of permanent injunction was also sought for restraining defendant no. 1 Darshan Singh from dispossessing and interfering in the possession of the plaintiff in the land measuring 76 Kanals 3 Marlas. As per the case set out by the plaintiff, he is son born out of the wedlock of Darshan Singh and Ageyawanti and after the death of Ageyawanti, he was brought up by defendant nos. 2 & 3 i.e. his real Aunt (Bua) and her husband Darshan Lal. It is the further case of the plaintiff that Darshan Singh-defendant no. 1 solemnized second marriage with Janak Rani, from whom two daughters, namely, Savita Rani and Mamta and one son, namely, Deepak Kumar were born. Since Darshan Singh did not accept the plaintiff as his natural son, the present suit for declaration was filed.
3. Upon notice, Darshan Singh denied that the plaintiff is his natural son and rather pleaded that he is the natural born son of defendant nos. 2 & 3.
4. In their separate written statement, the defendant nos. 2 & 3 have accepted the claim of the plaintiff.
5. After both the parties had led their respective evidence, the plaintiff in his rebuttal evidence moved the present two applications. Firstly, for conducting DNA test of plaintiff Amarjit and Leelawanti (defendant no. 3) to determine their relationship and the second application for conducting DNA test to determine the relationship of plaintiff Amarjit Singh @ Surjit Singh @ Kaka Singh and Darshan Singh (defendant no. 1).
6. Vide impugned order the learned trial Court has directed the parties to give their blood samples for the purpose of DNA test and has gone further by suo motto directing Swaran Kanta (not a party to the suit) to also give her blood sample for the purpose of determining as to whether the plaintiff is natural born son of Darshan Singh-defendant no. 1.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner (Darshan Singh) has argued that the learned trial Court has committed grave illegality by entertaining the application at such a belated stage, as it is an admitted fact that both the parties have lead their respective evidence and the matter was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. It has further been argued that when plaintiff appeared in the witness box, his parentage has been recorded as son of Darshan Lal and not son of Darshan Singh and thus, it was argued that this fact also shows that plaintiff is not the son of defendant no. 1/Petitioner and thus, there is no requirement of conducting the DNA test.
8. Learned Counsel on behalf of petitioner-Swaran Kanta has argued that learned trial Court has directed her to give blood sample for the purpose of DNA test, although she was neither a party to the lis nor any notice of the application was given to her and thus, the order directing Swaran Kanta to give her blood sample is against the law. It has been further argued that Swaran Kanta was married in the year 1986 and there is a possibility of her being Bastardized if DNA result does not match with Darshan Singh. Thus, prayer was made on her behalf as well for setting aside the impugned order. To support
