KANCHAN BEDI Vs. GURPREET SINGH BEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by Smt. Kanchan Bedi and her son Master Aman Bedi born on 1.7.2000 alleging that Smt. Kanchan Bedi was married to Shri Gurpreet Singh Bedi, the Defendant herein, on 22.9.1999 at Gurudwara Hemkunt Saheb. The husband, Shri Gurpreet Singh Bedi Defendant No. 1 and Plaintiff No. 1 are stated to have come back to Delhi on 27.9.1999 and to have started residing together at AG-557-D, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi. The Defendant has denied that any marriage has taken place between him and Smt. Kanchan; and that she had liaisons with other men; and that he has not sired the child, Master Aman. It has also been alleged in the Written Statement that Ms.Kanchan was previously married. This is not disputed and a photocopy of her Decree of Divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed today. There appears to be no documentary evidence to substantiate that the marriage took place at Hemkunt Saheb on 22.9.1999. For the present, even if it is assumed that no marriage took place, if it is otherwise established that the Defendant is the biological father of Master Aman, his liability and pious obligation to maintain his son would remain unaffected. If it is proved by the Plaintiff that the marriage did take place as alleged in the plaint, the effect would be that there would be an automatic presumption, albeitrebuttable, about the legitimacy of Master Aman. The Birth Certificate of Plaintiff No. 2 is on record and it declares the Defendant as the father. The registration of this birth has taken place as far back as on 27.7.2000. So far as the denials contained in the reply to the petition are concerned this is as far as the controversy extends.

(2.) In order to establish the parentage of the infant Aman an application has been filed by the Plaintiff praying that a DNA test should be ordered. This has been strenuously opposed by the Defendant whose Counsel has firstly contended that the prayer is precipitate inasmuch as Issues have yet to be framed in the suit. I find no merit in this submission for the reason that the law contemplates the grant of interim maintenance and if the Plaintiff is to wait till close to the conclusion of the suit, this right would be illusory. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal & Anr. II (1993) DMC162 (SC)=(1993) 3 SCC 418 by the Defendant, in particular to its paragraphs 18 and 26. In order to arrive at a proper understanding of that pronouncement these paragraphs are reproduced below:

(3.) On behalf of the Plaintiff reliance has been placed on a subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mr. 'X' v. Hospital 'Z', AIR 1999 SC 495. The decision was given in facts which are singular but which are likely to occur more and more frequently. The prospective husband had been diagnosed as HIV positive and the question that arose was whether the hospital which was in possession of this information was duty bound to disclose these facts to the prospective wife. On the one hand the Court kept in mind the Hipporatic and on the other, the almost absolute certainty that if conjugal relations took place between these two persons it would have the effect of subjecting the women to certain death. The Apex Court recognised that "In the face of these potentialities the Right of Privacy is an essential component of right to life envisaged by Art. 21. "It is observed nonetheless that "The right, however, is not absolute and may be lawfully restricted for the prevention of crime, disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of rights and freedoms of others". It is these observations which call to be enforced and meaningfully implemented on behalf of Plaintiff No. 2.