CHATURBHUJ PRADHAN Vs. AMAR PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave Granted.

(2.) The appellant-Chaturbhuj Pradhan [For ease 'CP'] is aggrieved by the fact that he has been ordered, concurrently, by the Courts below i.e., the First Additional Civil Judge, Class -II, Basna [In Civil Suit No. 13A/2019, by Order dtd. 21/9/2019] and the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur [ In WP227 No. 540 of 2021, by Order dtd. 16/6/2025,] to undergo DNA test to determine the paternity of the first respondent [For ease, 'Amar'], and has challenged the same before us in these proceedings.

(3.) The sequence of events triggering this appeal is that Amar is the son of the second respondent. The former claims to be the son of CP born on 10/9/1999 as a result of consensual relations between his mother and CP that took place in January 1999. The latter, while denying this, relies on his acquittal [Sessions Case No. 268/1999 by judgement dtd. 31/12/1999] in a case registered by the second respondent under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Beginning in 2003 and continuing until sometime in 2010, there were several instances of litigation inter se the parties concerning maintenance. However, it is not necessary to refer to those in detail as they do not form part of the present dispute, except to note that in Misc.Crl.CaseNo.113 of 2005 CP 's appeal before the High Court against grant of maintenance, an observation is made that Amar and the second respondent had failed to establish any relationship of CP, with them. This order was challenged before this Court [Criminal Appeal No. 789 of 2011 disposed of on 31/7/2024] and came to be disposed of in Lok Adalat with the observation that at the time of filing, Amar was a minor and as on the date of hearing before the Lok Adalat, he was 24 years old and as such nothing survives in the matter. During the pendency of the appeal before this Court, having attained majority, Amar filed a suit seeking declaration that he is the son of CP and that, accordingly, he is entitled to1/3rd share in his property. The Civil Court, particulars of which have been noted in para-2, passed necessary orders. CP 's appeal before the High Court was also dismissed observing that no other kind of evidence would be sufficient to clearly establish the paternity of Amar.