SUNIL SINGH Vs. ANJU GUPTA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal from order has been preferred under Sec. 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against judgment and order dtd. 16/12/2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital in Civil Suit No.208 of 2022 Sunil Singh vs. Anju Gupta Singh, whereby, application filed by appellant seeking permission for conducting DNA examination has been rejected.

(2.) The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are that appellanthusband instituted a matrimonial proceeding under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital against respondent no.1wife, inter alia alleging matrimonial misconduct including adultery. During the pendency of said proceedings, appellant moved an application (paper No.78-C dtd. 29/9/2025) before learned Family Court seeking direction for conducting DNA examination of the minor child. The said application was filed with object of substantiating allegation of adultery levelled by appellant against respondent no.1. Learned Family Court, upon consideration of the said application, rejected the same vide order dtd. 16/12/2025. While doing so, learned court below appears to have proceeded on the premise that permitting DNA examination would amount to determining the paternity of child and may adversely affect the rights, dignity and future of minor. Aggrieved by rejection of his application for DNA examination, appellant has preferred the present appeal from order before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for appellant has assailed the impugned order as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to settled principles of law. It is submitted that learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the scope and purpose of application filed by appellant. It is argued by learned counsel for appellant that appellant had never sought any declaration regarding the paternity of child, nor did he intend to disturb the legal status or rights of minor. The limited prayer of appellant was only to obtain scientific evidence by way of DNA examination for the purpose of substantiating his plea of adultery against respondent no.1. He further submits that learned court below has gravely erred in misdirecting itself by treating application for DNA testing as an attempt to attribute parentage of child to respondent no.2, whereas no such case was pleaded by appellant. According to him, the entire reasoning of impugned order rests on an assumption which does not arise from the pleadings on record.