Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1885
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ANIRUDDHA SINGH, J.
Ashok Singh Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Home And Anr. – Respondents
Misc. Single No.31284 of 2019
Decided on : 15-11-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Satyendra Prakash Singh, Abhishek Misra
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a DNA test can be ordered in a domestic violence case to prove paternity if a strong prima facie case and an eminent need are demonstrated, and the use of advanced science and technology is emphasized in resolving disputes.
Headnote:
DNA Test - Domestic Violence - The court held that the order for a DNA test of the petitioner and the child was necessary to prove the paternity in a domestic violence case. The court relied on the right of privacy and the need for a strong prima facie case to order a DNA test. The judgment emphasized the use of advanced science and technology to resolve disputes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order for a DNA test of himself and the child in a domestic violence case. The petitioner denied the allegations made by the respondent, who sought the DNA test to prove the paternity of the child.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order for a DNA test was necessary to prove the paternity in the domestic violence case. It emphasized the right of privacy and the need for a strong prima facie case to order a DNA test. The court also highlighted the use of advanced science and technology to resolve disputes.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court could order a DNA test of the petitioner and the child in a domestic violence case to prove paternity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right of privacy can be given about the paternity of a child and that a DNA test can be ordered if a strong prima facie case and an eminent need is made out for such a course. The judgment also emphasized the use of advanced science and technology to resolve disputes.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding no irregularity, illegality, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order for the DNA test. It concluded that the view taken by the appellate court was plausible and no interference was called for.
JUDGMENT :
Aniruddha Singh, J.
1. The present petition has been preferred by petitioner Ashok Singh Chauhan against Aditi Shukla challenging the order dated 21.9.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, P.C. Act, Court No. 1/Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 102/2019 setting aside the order dated 8.3.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI (Ayodhya Prakaran), Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 525/2018 and allowed the application of Aditi Shukla for DNA test of petitioner Ashok Singh Chauhan and Master Saurya.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at present situation, no order can be passed for DNA test of petitioner. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhabani Prasad Jena Vs. Convenor Secretary Orissa State Commission For Women and another (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1053.
4. In brief the facts of the case are that love marriage was solemnized between Ashok Singh Chauhan (petitioner) and Aditi Shukla. Aditi Shukla became pregnant and one son Mater Shaurya was born out of their wedlock. Later on, this fact came to the knowledge of Aditi Shukla that Ashok Singh Chauhan was already married with another lady and was having three children. Aditi Shukla moved an application under Section 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, petitioner denied allegations made by Aditi Shukla. Aditi Shukla moved application for D.N.A. test to show that the son born by her, is the son of petitioner. That was rejected by trial court, against that order appeal was preferred by Aditi Shukla which which was allowed by impugned order. Hence this petition.
5. Learned A.G.A. submitted that Aditi Shukla has no other option to prove her case except DNA test of the petitioner. Impugned order has no illegality.
6. This issue was categorically discussed by Delhi High Court in the case of Rohit Shekhar Vs. Narayan Dutt Tiwari and another decided on 27.4.2012 and it was found that competent authority has power to direct the person for DNA. test, if required.
7. So far as the case law placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that right of privacy can be given about paternity of child. DNA test being an extremely delicate and sensitive aspect, a direction for said test can be given if a strong prima facie case and an eminent need is made out for such a course.
8. Hence, it is very clear that order of DNA test can be passed by the court, considering the evidence and need. At present considering the case and situation, this Court finds that Aditi Shukla has no other way or option to prove her case except DNA test, hence DNA test of petitioner with Master Saurya is necessary.
9. It is made very clear that petitioner will not be prejudiced, if DNA test report is called for.
10. Now, it is the need of time, when these types of dispute be decided with the help of advanced science and technology as it is the best way to prove or disprove such controversy. Hence this Court finds that from getting the DNA test report no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties and is necessary in order to find out the truth.
11. Considering the case in Rohit Shekhar Vs. Narayan Dutt Tiwari and another decided by Delhi High Court on 27.4.2012 and in above backdrop this Court finds that no irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error is found in the impugned order. The view taken by appellate Court is plausible view, hence no interference is called for by this Court. Writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly the present petition is dismissed.
13. Copy of this order be sent to the court concerned within seven days for further and necessary action.
