SULOCHANA SAHOO AND OTHERS Vs. BAMAN CHARAN SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenge, inter alia, the order dated 18.08.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Pipili in Title Suit No.120 of 2001, whereby and whereunder, the learned trial court rejected the application of the petitioners to conduct their DNA test.

(2.) The opposite party as plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration that the defendant no.1 is neither the second wife nor the concubine of the plaintiff, defendant nos.2 to 6 are not the children of the plaintiff through defendant no.1, the defendants are not entitled to get any maintenance from the plaintiff and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants to enter into the house of the plaintiff in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Pipili, which is registered as T.S. No.120 of 2001. The case of the plaintiff is that he is a Government employee. He married to Radhamani Sahoo and leading a peaceful marital life. Out of their wedlock, five sons and one daughter are born. In the year 1980, defendant no.1 married to one Baban Sahoo as per Hindu rites and customs. Defendant nos.2 to 6 are the sons and daughters of defendant no.1. Defendant no.1's father's sister is the mother -in -law of the plaintiff. The defendant no.1 had occasion to come to his village. The plaintiff had acquaintance with defendant no.1. It is further stated that the father of the defendant no.1 had incurred a hand loan of Rs.5,000/ - from his sister in the year 1999. Since he failed to return the money, dispute arose between the brother and sister, whereafter the father of the defendant no.1 threatened to take revenge. While the matter stood thus, he received a notice in Misc. Case No.2 of 2000 of the learned J.M.F.C., Khurda wherein the defendants claimed maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. @ Rs.3,000/ - per month from him. In the said petition, defendant no.1 described falsely as his second wife and defendant nos.2 to 6 are the children of the plaintiff through defendant no.1. The allegations made in the petition are false and baseless. He filed a rejoinder and contested the said misc. case, but the learned trial court allowed the claim of defendants and granted maintenance to each of the defendant @Rs.400/ - per month. It is further stated that the plaintiff had never married to the defendant no.1 at any point of time. Defendant no.1 with the help of her father and in connivance with some of the people of the locality intended to grab his property. Being emboldened by the order of the learned J.M.F.C., Khurda, the defendant no.1 came to the village on 15.3.2001 with defendant nos.2 and her father and attempted to trespass to his residential house claiming to his wife.

(3.) Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed a comprehensive written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The substraction of the case of the defendant no.1 is that she is the legal married wife of the plaintiff. The first wife of the plaintiff, namely, Radhamani is the cousin sister of the defendant no.1. Defendant nos.2 and 3 are the sons and defendant nos.4 to 6 are the daughters of the plaintiff and defendant no.1. After the delivery of last child Radhamani, due to filaria, unable to take care of the child and to perform her marital duties. For that purpose, with the intervention of in -laws of Radhamani and other gentlemen, the defendant no.1 got married to the plaintiff after obtaining the consent of Radhamani. After the marriage the plaintiff and defendant no.1 led a happy conjugal life in the house of the plaintiff. Out of their wedlock, the defendant nos.2 to 6 are born. In the year 1999, the plaintiff informed the defendant no.1 that he fell in love with another girl at Puri namely Mami and wanted to marry her and persuaded her to sign in a plain paper. The defendant no.1 did not agree with the proposal of the plaintiff, whereafter he abandoned the defendants. Attempts were made to settle the dispute. She also made complaint before the authority and the Collector, but her attempts ended in a fiasco. Thereafter, she filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. being Crl. Misc. Case No.2/2000 in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda seeking maintenance for her and the children. The plaintiff appeared in that case and denied the assertions made in the petition. He had not adduced evidence. The case was allowed. When the N.B.W. and D.W. were issued against the plaintiff, he has filed this suit with vexatious allegations to wriggle out of the liabilities.