SACHIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When this case was heard on 2.2.2012, we had directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to give notice to the learned counsel for respondents Sri V.P. Gupta that this case would be taken up today. He has given the notice on 6.2.2012 but Sri Gupta has refused to take the notice. He has filed the notice which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A.

(2.) On 15.12.2010, an earlier Division Bench of this Court passed an order for getting a D.N.A. test of the child and Laxman and Smt. Saroj done to decide whether the child was actually their progeny. The D.N.A. report has been received which mentions that Smt. Saroj and Laxman are not the biological parents of the child Sachin.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been following the due process of law and acting in an honest manner for trying to obtain custody of the child, but the respondent Nos. 7 and 8, appear to have prevailed over the police of P.S. Majhola who came to the house of the petitioner and forcibly took away the child on 13.7.2010 and to have handed him over to respondent Nos. 7 and 8, who falsely claimed to be the biological parents of the child.