HOUSABAI TULSHIRAM ADHAL Vs. VILLAGE DEVELOLPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 17.1.2006, passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangamner, vide which the application of the present petitioner for sending sample of blood of respondent No.2 and the son of the petitioner, for DNA test came to be rejected.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that she was having illicit relationship with the respondent No.2, out of which she gave birth to a male child. It is alleged that the respondent No.2 had given assurance of marriage to the petitioner. However, after the child was born, the respondent NO.2 refused to marry with her. She, therefore, applied to the respondent for registration of birth. Since the respondent No.1 refused to register the birth of the child, an application came to be filed under Section 19 of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886 before the learned Additional District Judge, Sangamner. In the said proceedings, an application came to be filed by the petitioner for sending the blood sample for DNA Test as aforesaid. The said application came to be rejected. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) Shri Dixit, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a conjoint reading of Sections 19 and 20 would lead to an interpretation that the Court is required to inquire into the paternity of the child and for that purpose, DNA test is necessary and as such, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. He further submits that though the application was only for sending the blood sample for DNA Test, the learned trial court has in effect rejected the inquiry application bearing No.10/2003 of the petitioner.