KANNIAMMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (a) The order to be pronounced today in this petition will have to be consolidated and take in its fold the orders already pronounced by this Court on 13/4/1989, 19/4/1989, 21/l989(sic) and 12/5/1989. Those orders narrate the detailed facts and further furnish information about the different stage of proceedings, on the directions of this Court, in this petition. Since those orders will be typed hereunder initially, repetition of facts and further details over again will be redundant.

(2.) The Head in charge of the Post Graduate Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Tharamani, who was directed on 19/4/1989 to carry out necessary tests to decide parentage of Lakshmi/Mary and who undertook to do so, had expressed a view initially that the tests to be conducted by that Institute may not be conclusive in a paternity dispute and had offered a suggestion that the Forensic Science Department, Kamarajar Salai, Madras-4 could be directed to conduct comprehensive tests of paternity (vide order dated 21/4/1989). By an order dated 21/4/1989, I had directed both the Head in charge of the Post Graduate Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Tharamani and the Forensic Science Department, Mylapore, Madras, to conduct necessary scientific tests to decide the paternity of Lakshmi/Mary. The tests were so directed to be carried out, since both the contesting parties through their counsel consented for such a course in the interests of justice and not to deprive the young child of the motherly affection, for a long time.

(3.) By his report dated 10/5/1989, the Head in charge of the Department of Genetics, Post Graduate Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, had expressed a comment (opinion) that based on the tests carried out at his department, the paternity of Lakshmi/Mary cannot be suggested. At this stage, it will be better to refer to the tests that had been conducted by this Institute. On the blood grouping ABO type performed not only on the questioned child but the disputed parents and the other children of the disputed parents, neither of the couples could be excluded as the parents of the child under dispute based on that data, for the blood group of the Petitioner was A1 and that of her husband was A1 B, while the blood group of Lakshmi/Mary was A1. The blood group of 2nd Respondent Perumal belonged to B group, while that of his wife Kaliammal was A1.