JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Janaki K.M., it appears is striving to be called a legitimate and legally wedded wife of Gopalan Nair. She was also clamouring for her daughter to have a name of her father so that the child, a female, is not called illegitimate. This effort she is making for a long time, it appears, primarily to do away the social stigma which is haunting her and her daughter. In her pursuit to achieve the desired result she, prior in point of time, filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was however dismissed for default in 1992. She then filed a petition Ext.P3 dated 24.4.2000 before the Kerala Women's Commission claiming that her husband had deserted her and her daughter. She claimed a declaration being the wife of Gopalan Nair and in consequence thereof a further declaration that her female child was the legitimate daughter of her husband. Gopalan Nair appeared before the Commission and filed a counter statement. He was then served with notice Ext.P5 directing him to appear for DNA test on 3.3.2003. He challenged the order aforesaid by filing O.P.No. No. 6577 of 2003 which has been dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge has been questioned by Gopalan Nair, hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner', by filing WA No. 2314 of 2004.

(2.) Smt. Reena @ Sindhu likewise is endeavouring to be called a legitimate daughter of Joseph, primarily in pursuit of the same cause as guided Janaki K.M. to be called as legitimate wife of Gopalan Nair. In pursuit of her goal she approached the Kerala Women's Commission by filing Ext.P3 petition stating that she was living for ten years with her mother, who was an adivasi and that out of the wedlock between Joseph and her mother an adivasi woman, she was born. Joseph, hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner' was disowning her paternity and it is in that context that she prayed to the Commission to hold a DNA test of the petitioner to establish the blood relationship between him and her. The Women's Commission held enquiry after issuing notice to the petitioner. When the Commission, however, ordered DNA test, he filed original petition bearing No. 34349 of 2002 which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide orders dated 24th June, 2004. It is against this order of the learned Single Judge that the petitioner has filed W.A.No. 1761 of 2004.

(3.) Both these appeals were clubbed together. Common arguments have been raised. Thus, this common judgment.