KAMALA AND ORS. Vs. SHIVAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner - mother and the minor child filed a petition under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming that the 1st petitioner is the wife and the 2nd petitioner is the minor child born out of the wedlock of the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent.

(2.) On appearance, the respondent filed his objection statement denying the relationship with the petitioner No. 1. He denies his parental relationship to the minor child. The wife filed an application for interim maintenance, which on contest came to be rejected vide order dated 17.01.2014. On 16.08.2014 she filed an application under Sec. 45 of Indian Evidence Act r/w Sec. 10 of Family Court Act. After contest, the learned Family Judge rejected the application. Petitioners are aggrieved by the said order.

(3.) Sri. Hanumantha Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that only on the ground that the respondent denied his relationship to the petitioners, the Court could not have rejected application for D.N.A. Test. If said test is carried out, it can conclusively establish the relationship of respondent to the petitioners. On the allegation of contacting 2nd marriage during the subsistence to the first marriage, a departmental enquiry was held against the respondent. He is a Police Constable. In the departmental enquiry, the charges have been proved and punishment was imposed on him. The reasons assigned by the Court while rejecting the application is not correct. The order has resulted in miscarriage of justice to the petitioners and same may be quashed by directing the Respondent to submit for D.N.A. Test. The learned Counsel has relied on a decision of Apex Court in the case of Narayan Dutt Tiwari v/s. Rohit Shekhar and another ([2012] 12 SCC 554).