In paternity disputes, the court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the one denying parentage, and DNA testing can be authorized to ascertain biological relationships.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

Heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The prayer sought in the writ petition is to quash the impugned order dated 02.08.2019 on I.A.No.6 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hirekerur rejecting the same in O.S.No.5/2017 vide Annexure-F to grant such other reliefs as deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff before the Trial Court and he filed the suit against defendant No.1 claiming that he is his father and also content that he is entitled for share in the suit schedule properties and also sought for mense profits. The suit is registered by the defendants and defendant No.1 specifically denied that the plaintiff is not the son of him.

4. The Trial Court also considering the pleadings of the party, framed the issues and parties are also allowed to lead the evidence. The plaintiff also examined himself and also examined four witnesses and also defendant was examined i.e., defendant No.1 and he was also cross- examined. After recording the evidence, the application was filed invoking Order 26 Rule 10(a) R/W 151 of CPC and also Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 . He claims that defendant No.1 got married his mother Smt.Somamma and he started living at Mudigere Taluk, Pulguni Village. In the said wedlock he was born. Defendant No.1 used to visit Shiragambi Village for taking care of the properties. It is also sworn in the affidavit that after marriage he started to reside at Kodapugere village. His mother was residing in Pulguni village and she passed away in 2015 and claims that he was the biological son of defendant No.1 and he is entitled for half share in the suit schedule property.

5. Defendant No.1 is denying that he is not the son. In order to determine the plaintiff is the son of defendant No.1 or not, DNA test is necessary. Apart from the witnesses who have been examined before the Court, the said application is registered by filing written statement by defendant No.1 contending that the plaintiff's mother married one Basappa Jadara and she was also claiming after the death of her husband widow pension and having five children through the Basappa Jadara and this plaintiff is one of the son of the said Basappa Jadara and he is not the son of defendant No.1 and there is no need of conducting any DNA test.

6. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties i.e., grounds urged in the application as well as the statement of objection comes to the conclusion that it is the burden on the plaintiff to prove that he is born to deceased Somamma in the wedlock with defendant No.1. Mere DNA would not suffice to hold that to the plaintiff is the son of defendant No.1 born to deceased Somamma. When the defendant specifically contended that the said Somamma was the wife of Basappa Jadara and the plaintiff is born to the said Basappa Jadara, it is burden on the plaintiff to prove that the deceased Somamma was not a wife of Basappa Tirakappa Jadara and she is the wife of defendant No.1. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove that defendant No.1 married to deceased Somamma. Hence, the same cannot be permitted.

7. The counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application and after the examination of the witnesses, only an application is filed. It is also content that even though PW.2 supported the petitioner, the Trial Court without considering the same and documents, rejected the application.

8. It is contended that application is filed before the closing of evidence, but the Trial Court came to the conclusion that application is filed at