SATYA ROOPA SINHA Vs. SARWAN KUMAR MEHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been filed under Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short "the Code"), impugning order dtd. 19/1/2019 passed by Family Court, Gurugram, whereby application filed by the respondent seeking DNA test of the child of the petitioner, has been allowed.

(2.) Brief background of the case is, that the petitioner has approached the Family Court with a petition under Sec. 125 of the Code claiming maintenance on the ground that she was married with the respondent on 8/3/2001 at a temple at Haridwar and a child was born out of the wedlock on 8/6/2005, who is studying in a school. It has been averred that the respondent is an educated person and has a monthly income of more than Rs.90,000.00. He is getting a substantial monthly rentals, besides earning from the agricultural land owned by him in his native village in Bihar. It has been claimed that they resided together as a married couple at Gurugram, but she was treated with mental and physical cruelty and was turned out from the matrimonial home as she could not meet the material demands of her in-laws. She is residing in a rented accommodation and is dependent upon her father. A claim of monthly maintenance of Rs.50,000.00 has been raised to meet her expenses, which has been opposed by the respondent by filing his reply dtd. 25/1/2017, Annexure P-2, wherein he has denied marital ties with the petitioner. Respondent has claimed that he is of an advanced age and was married to Babita in the year 1998, who expired on 28/11/2002 and that he has two sons out of the wedlock, both of whom are married. He has denied the paternity of the child. It has been further claimed that the petitioner, who has sufficient income to maintain herself, had married one Ajay in the year 2000 and ran away from there and subsequently started living with Shanker as his wife. Application, Annexure P-7, has been filed by him for conducting the DNA test of the child, which has been resisted by the petitioner by filing reply, Annexure P-8. The application has been allowed vide order impugned herein.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Family Court on the ground that the paternity test of the child is not required and the fatherhood of the respondent stands established from the ration card, aadhar cards and school fee receipts and other record appended as Annexures P-3 to P-6 with the petition. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goutam Kundu Versus State of West Bangal and another (1993) 3 SCC 418.