S. AMBIKA Vs. RAJAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent in I.A.No.4117 of 1980 in A.S.No.121 of 1979 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge,Trivandrum is the revision petitioner,and the revision is directed against the order passed on I.A.No.4117 of 1980 filed by the respondent herein who is the appellant in A.S.No.121 of 1979,allowing his prayer to get himself examined by the Assistant Family Planning Medical Officer,Trivandrum.The parties will be hereinafter referred to as the petitioner and the respondent.The petitioner claimed that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and minor Sindhu was born to them during their wedlock.Alleging neglect by the respondent,the petitioner filed an application for maintenance for herself and the minor girl under S.125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.Although this petition was contested by the respondent,the learned Magistrate after taking evidence and due consideration of the same awarded maintenance to the petitioner and the minor girl.The respondent instituted O.S.No.382 of 1978 before the Munsiff 's Court,Trivandrum praying for a declaration that Sindhu(2nd defendant in the suit)was not his child and the defendants were not entitled to maintenance.The suit was contested and both sides adduced evidence both oral and documentary,and,on the conclusion of the trial the suit was dismissed.

(2.) THE respondent,being aggrieved by this dismissal,filed A.S.No.121 of 1979 before the District Court,Trivandrum and the same was made over to the Principal Subordinate Judge for disposal according to law.While the appeal was pending before the Sub Court,the respondent filed I.A.No.4117 of 1980 under O.41 R.27,28 and 29 praying that Assistant Planning Medical Officer,Trivandrum,be directed to subject the petitioner to a thorough medical check up including his semen test and to state whether vasectomy operation conducted on the petitioner(the appellant)on 21st December 1968 was a 100 percent success and whether he has any power to procreate after the said operation ;.This application was strongly opposed by the petitioner on several grounds.But the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the prayer on condition that the respondent pays Rs.100 towards costs to the petitioner herein.

(3.) O .41,R.27 reads: 27.Production of Additional evidence in appellate Court. -