CHINMAYEE MOHANTY ALIAS KAMILA Vs. KRUSHNA NARAYAN KAMILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was the opposite party in Civil Proceeding No. 166 of 2004 pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack challenges the propriety of the order passed by the said Judge, Family Court, Cuttack on 15.2.2011 directing the petitioner as well as the opposite party so also their child to undergo D.N.A. test with regard to the determination of the paternity of the child in question.

(2.) Before going to examine the propriety or impropriety of the impugned order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, it will be worthwhile to mention the cases of the parties in brief. According to the husband-petitioner, he married the opposite party-wife on 24.2.2003. But according to the petitioner, there was no relationship between them and the opposite party behaved differently in maintaining conjugal relationship and ultimately the opposite party-wife was taken by her father to his house on the pretext of some custom. The further case of the petitioner is that he came to know that his wife has given birth to a male child in S.C.B. Medical College Hospital, Cuttack on 9 th November, 2003. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the opposite party was impregnated by some other person before marriage and that was the reason as to why she deprived him of his conjugal rights. Under such circumstances the petitioner filed the proceeding for annulling his marriage with the opposite party and to grant a decree of divorce with a further prayer to declare that the child born to the opposite party (wife) is not his child.

(3.) The opposite party-wife contested the proceeding by way of filing the written statement wherein she denied the allegations of the petitioner and interalia pleaded that the child born to her is out of her wedlock with the petitioner and it is her specific case that she was physically and mentally tortured by the petitioner and his mother on demand of dowry and after the birth of the child the petitioner did not take care of her as well as the child nor did pay anything towards their maintenance for which she is residing with her parents especially when the petitioner refused to take them back to his house.