ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“A. Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition;

B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, writ or mandamus by directing the learned Trial Court to allow the application of the present applicant at Exh 90 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.20 of 2018 and thereby quash an order passed in below Exh 90 in CRMA No.20 of 2018 and Criminal Revision Application No.109 of

2023.

C. Pending admission, hearing and final hearing, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the further proceedings in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.20 of 2018 before the Ld. Trial Court, Sagbara and further stay an order passed in below Exh 10 in Criminal Revision Application No.109 of

2023 by the learned Sessions Court, Narmada;

D. Your Lordships may be pleased to grant ad-interim relief in Para10 (B-C);

E. Any other relief deemed just and proper may please be granted in the interest of justice.”

3. Brief fact of the case are that:

3.1 Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 filed an application for maintenance from the Present petitioner under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sagbera. The Present petitioner disputes respondent No. 3's legitimacy. Consequently, the Judicial Magistrate ordered a DNA test for the Present Applicant and respondent No. 3. Although the DNA test reportedly yielded positive results, the Present Applicant contests the test procedure. Thus, an application (Exh 90) was made to examine the doctor conducting the test.

3.2 The learned Trial Court, on arbitrary grounds, rejected the present petitioner's application, deeming it a tactic to delay the court proceedings. Additionally, the court noted that the petitioner's request to examine the Doctor came nearly two years after the DNA Report's date. Consequently, the trial Court dismissed the petitioner's application. Furthermore, based on the submissions of respondent No. 2, the Court observed that the petitioner's name is listed as the father on the Aadhar Card and other relevant documents, rendering the examination of the Doctor unnecessary.

3.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the trial Court, the petitioner approached this Court by way of this petition, stating that the petitioner is not married to respondent No. 2, and no marriage has been solemnized between the present petitioner and respondent No. 2. Therefore, the learned trial Court committed an error in deciding the application. Consequently, the petitioner seeks just and appropriate directions from this Hon'ble Court, requesting permission for the examination of a doctor.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that there are valid grounds to request an examination of the doctor. This examination is crucial to establish the child's legitimacy, which in turn will determine their eligibility for maintenance from the applicant. Furthermore, even if the DNA test is not directly pertinent to determining maintenance, it remains imperative to ensure that the test adhered to proper procedure. It is emphasized that the petitioner has never been married to respondent No.2. Government-issued identity cards are deemed insufficient evidence of legitimacy and do not establish the paternity or maternity of the biological parents. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 has not submitted a marriage certificate or any other evidence confirming the solemnization of their marriage. There is also no claim from any member of the complainant that a marriage took place between them.

Therefore, he submits that the petition may be allowed.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the present petition and submits that Since the DNA test has already been conducted and it is proved that the respondent No.3 is petitioner's son daughter, there is no need for further examination o