The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility and relevance of DNA tests in resolving disputes over paternity, especially in cases where there is a serious dispute regarding the paternity of the child.

ORDER :

1. Shri Prashant Sharma, counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Anurag Saxena, counsel for the respondent.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 17-11-2017 (Annexure P1) passed by Additional District Judge, Lahar, District Bhind in Case No. 249-A/2014 (HMA), by which the application filed by the petitioner for conducting the DNA Test of the petitioner with that of the child delivered by the respondent, has been rejected.

3. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioner has filed an application for grant of divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on various grounds. It appears that the reconciliation proceedings were taken up on 7-9-2015. On the said date, both the parties were present before the Court. After the conciliation proceedings, the petitioner agreed to take the respondent with him on the same day only, whereas the respondent submitted that that she is pregnant and the petitioner is alleging that the child does not belong to him and, therefore, she does not want to go with the petitioner. It is further mentioned in the order that thereafter, the petitioner admitted that he is the father of the child and he wants to take the respondent with him and would keep her with full dignity and even after persuasion by the trial Court, the respondent expressed that she wants to go to Lahar and from Lahar she would go to the house of the petitioner and thus, it was directed that on the next date of hearing, both the parties shall come together and the case was adjourned for 9-9-2015.

4. On 9-9-2015, it was disclosed by the petitioner that the respondent has not come to his house, whereas the respondent did not appear before the trial Court and an adjournment was sought by the counsel for the respondent that as she is not well, therefore, she could not appear. Thus, it is clear that even after the reconciliation proceedings on 7-9-2015, the respondent did not go to her matrimonial house in spite of willingness expressed by the petitioner in the said reconciliation proceedings, the respondent had herself stated that the petitioner is denying that he is the father of the child, which the respondent is carrying. However, it appears that in order to resolve the dispute, the petitioner admitted that he is the father of the child.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, in which it was mentioned that after the reconciliation proceedings took place in the Court of JMFC, the petitioner had come to her matrimonial house on 29-4-2015 and they had physical relations on 25-5-2015. Thereafter, when the respondent was taken to the doctor for medical examination, then it was found in the ultrasound conducted on 27-7-2015 that the respondent is carrying the pregnancy of 14 months (sic. weeks). Thus, it is clear that when the petitioner did not have physical relations with the respondent prior to 25-5-2015, then how she became pregnant. It was further mentioned that on the next day i.e. on 28-6-2015, the respondents went back to her matrimonial home and gave birth to a boy child on 12-1-2016. It was mentioned that the petitioner is not the biological father of the child born on 12-1-2016 and accordingly, it was prayed that the DNA test of the petitioner with that of the child may be conducted so as to do complete justice.

6. The application was opposed by the counsel for the respondent. It was submitted in the reply that in fact, the respondent had gone to her matrimonial home on 29-4-2015 and on the said date only, she had physical relations with the petitioner and as a result of the said physical relations, the respondent became pregnant. On 25-8-2015, the ultrasound of the respondent was got done and as per the said report, the estimated age of the fetus was 18-19 weeks. Thereafter, on 12-1-2016, the respondent had given birth to a boy child, however, on several occasions, p