S.GOPINATH Vs. P.DHANALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dtd. 3/4/2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in H.M.O.P.No.131 of 2021, on the file of the Sub Judge, Melur, Madurai District.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit the first marriage was solemnized between the first respondent and the second respondent in the year 2014 and subsequently, the first respondent married the petitioner on 30/3/2018 at Sivan Temple. The petitioner's profession is Poosari and before the marriage, he working as a Poosari in Malaysia for the past 10 years. After 40 days of marriage, again he went to Malaysia for his job. At the time of marriage, the first respondent suppressed her first marriage with the second respondent. After the marriage, there was no cordial relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent and thereafter, he went to Singapore for his avocation and thereafter, he came to know that the first respondent blessed with female child and therefore, he came to India and subsequently, there was a matrimonial dispute arose between the petitioner and the first respondent and thereby, he filed a divorce petition in H.M.O.P.No.131 of 2021, on the file of the Sub-Court, Melur with a prayer to declare the marriage dtd. 30/3/2018 is null and void and to declare that the petitioner is not a biological father of the child born on 2/12/2018 and pending HMOP., the petitioner filed I.A.No.2 of 2024 under Order 26 Rule 10A and Sec. 151 of CPC seeking to conduct DNA test to identify the paternity of the child, however, the same was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly, there was a first marriage between the first respondent and the second respondent. Suppressing the first marriage, the second marriage was performed in between the petitioner and the first respondent on 30/3/2018 and thereafter, a female child born on 2/12/2018. Immediately, after 10 days of the marriage, the petitioner left India. The girl child was not born out of the matrimonial relationship with the petitioner and the first respondent and thereby, he specifically made a prayer in the HMOP petition that the petitioner is not a biological father of the child and hence, it is just and necessary to conduct DNA test. The only source available to the petitioner to prove the paternity of the child is to take the DNA test and prays for allowing the revision.