IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA

th

ON THE 29 OF OCTOBER, 2025 FIRST APPEAL No. 320 of 2021 GAYA PRASAD YADAV Versus SMT. VANDANA YADAV AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Aman Gupta - Advocate for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

ORDER Per: Justice B. P. Sharma Appellant had filed this appeal under Section 19 of Family Court Act, 1984 read with Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, against judgment and decree dated 18.2.2021 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Tikamgarh (MP) in Hindu Marriage Case No.105/2016 whereby an application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, filed by appellant, has been rejected.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the appellant/husband before the Trial Court was that his marriage with the respondent/wife was solemnized on 06.06.2011 as per Hindu rites and rituals. It is alleged that after about eight days of the marriage, the respondent returned to her parental home and came back to her matrimonial home only on 10.02.2012, after a period of about six to seven months. She again stayed for about eight days and, on 17.02.2012, returned to her parental home with her brother. Thereafter, she came to the matrimonial home on 11.06.2012, but again left for her parents’ house on 22.06.2012. After nearly eight months, the respondent again returned and stayed for about one month, but again went back to her parental home on 17.02.2013. Subsequently, she returned on 11.07.2013 and stayed for about 37 days. Thereafter, she visited the matrimonial home on 21.11.2013, remained there till 29.11.2013, and then again left for her parental home, taking along her stridhan.

3. It is further the case of the appellant that on one occasion, when the respondent was ill, the appellant proposed to take her to the hospital, but she refused and allegedly threatened that she would commit suicide by jumping into a well if she was not immediately sent back to her parental home. Subsequently, in the month of September, 2014, the appellant was informed by one of his relatives residing near the parental home of the respondent that the respondent had given birth to a male child. It is the allegation of the appellant that after the aforesaid period, the respondent neither cohabited with the appellant nor did the appellant visit her at her parental home. Thereafter, the appellant approached the Family Court seeking a decree of divorce and also prayed for conducting a DNA test. However, despite the appellant depositing the requisite charges, the respondent did not appear for the DNA test.

4. It has been submitted on behalf of appellant that the conduct of the respondent in repeatedly avoiding and refusing to undergo the DNA test, despite specific repeated directions of the Trial Court and even after the appellant deposited the requisite charges, is a material circumstance which warrants drawing of an adverse presumption against her under Section 114, Illustration (g) of the Indian Evidence Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again held that when a party having exclusive knowledge of a relevant fact deliberately withholds or suppresses evidence, the Court is entitled to presume that such evidence, if produced, would have gone against that party. In the present case, the fact relating to paternity of the child is within the special knowledge of the respondent, and thus, the burden squarely lies upon respondent to disclose the truth and assist the Court in the adjudication of the matrimonial dispute. However, instead of cooperating in the judicial process, she has consistently adopted a defiant attitude only to keep the truth obscured. It has further been submitted that refusal of the respondent to undergo a DNA examination, when directed by the Court, constitutes a circumstance which may in itself be sufficient to draw adverse inference and may support a claim of infidelity. The said conduct, coupled with the admitted prolonged period