JITENDRA SINGH KAURAV Vs. RAJKUMARI KAURAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 17/11/2017 (Annexure P1) passed by Additional District Judge, Lahar, District Bhind in Case No.249-A/2014 (HMA), by which the application filed by the petitioner for conducting the DNA Test of the petitioner with that of the child delivered by the respondent, has been rejected.

(2.) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioner has filed an application for grant of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on various grounds. It appears that the reconciliation proceedings were taken up on 07/09/2015. On the said date, both the parties were present before the Court. After the conciliation proceedings, the petitioner agreed to take the respondent with him on the same day only, whereas the respondent submitted that that she is pregnant and the petitioner is alleging that the child does not belong to him and, therefore, she does not want to go with the petitioner. It is further mentioned in the order that thereafter, the petitioner admitted that he is the father of the child and he wants to take the respondent with him and would keep her with full dignity and even after persuasion by the trial Court, the respondent expressed that she wants to go to Lahar and from Lahar she would go to the house of the petitioner and thus, it was directed that on the next date of hearing, both the parties shall come together and the case was adjourned for 09/09/2015.

(3.) On 09/09/2015, it was disclosed by the petitioner that the respondent has not come to his house, whereas the respondent did not appear before the trial Court and an adjournment was sought by the counsel for the respondent that as she is not well, therefore, she could not appear. Thus, it is clear that even after the reconciliation proceedings on 07/09/2015, the respondent did not go to her matrimonial house in spite of willingness expressed by the petitioner in the said reconciliation proceedings, the respondent had herself stated that the petitioner is denying that he is the father of the child, which the respondent is carrying. However, it appears that in order to resolve the dispute, the petitioner admitted that he is the father of the child.