RAM BALI MISHRA Vs. SIYA DEVI @ VAKILIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned Counsel for the caveators/respondents and perused the record.

(2.) In this view, it was ordered that the impugned order shall not be imposed till the final decision of the Court.

(3.) Learned Counsel has also submitted that in the case of Rajni Aggarwal v. Sushma Aggarwal, 2010 111 RevDec 464 Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court has held that dispute in respect of a valid marriage does not fall in the category where D.N.A., test is required. The relevant guidelines have been summarized in this judgment. In Banarasi Das v. Tiku Dutta, 2005 4 SCC 449, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that D.N.A., test should not be directed as a matter of routine and only in the deserving cases such a direction should be given. Lastly, the learned Counsel for the revisionist has submitted through the D.N.A. test, the fact that marriage between the revisionist and respondent No. 1 was solemnized cannot be proved. The Court below without due application of mind has allowed both the applications and the impugned orders are not sustainable.