ROHIT SHEKHAR Vs. NARAYAN DUTT TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff by this application seeks a direction to the first defendant to furnish blood samples for enabling the DNA testing.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiff claims a decree for declaration that the first defendant is his biological father. The second defendant (hereafter referred to as Ujjawala Sharma) is the plaintiff.s mother. Apparently, he (first defendant) was a Member of Parliament during the period 1967-1980. It is contended that Ujjawala Sharma was active in politics and involved in activities of All India Young Woman Congress apart from her job as Sanskrit Lecturer at Daulat Ram College. The plaintiff also contends that Ujjawala Sharma was previously married to Sh. B.P. Sharma from whom she was estranged. Apparently, she and her husband Sh. B.P. Sharma had a son Siddhartha Sharma. The plaintiff contends that the first defendant did not have any child from his marriage, and, as he was very fond of Ujjawala Sharma and even wanted to marry her, he convinced her to have his child promising that he would divorce his wife and give his name to the child to be borne by her (i.e. Ujjawala Sharma). The plaintiff submits that believing the first defendant and due to his emotional pressure, Ujjawala Sharma yielded to his request and the plaintiff was born on 15.02.1979. It is contended that the first defendant showed interest in the plaintiff as father right from the beginning and used, to sometime, stay with him in the house of his maternal grandfather or wherever the plaintiff and Ujjawala Sharma resided.

(3.) The suit averments allege that the first defendant used to celebrate all important festivals and the plaintiff.s birthday together, with him, and that he, i.e. (the plaintiff was) told by his mother and his maternal grandparents, as well as well wishers that the first defendant would adopt him. It is stated that in the records, plaintiff.s father name was disclosed as B.P. Sharma but around the time when he became 12/13 years, he was made aware of the circumstances of his birth and that he was the biological son of the first defendant. The plaintiff claims that the first defendant was active in politics and that his relationship with him (i.e. the plaintiff) was in the public knowledge. With passage of time, , the first defendant gained prominence in his political career and started taking less interest in his (the plaintiff.s) life, even though he maintained some relationship. In 1995, the plaintiff suffered a blow when the first defendant refused to meet Ujjawala Sharma and instructed his staff that she should not be allowed to enter the house. The plaintiff felt this rejection difficult to understand, as it was a big blow to his self-esteem since he was of an impressionable age, i.e. 16 years. It is alleged that the first defendant.s men used to give the plaintiff threatening calls. The suit alleges that in 2001 when the plaintiff tried to meet the first defendant in Delhi with Ujjawala Sharma, he was rebuffed and manhandled by the first defendant.s guards.