HARI CHAND Vs. NITU BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 06.04.2012 (Annexure P-3), whereby application moved by the petitioner under Order 26 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for permission to examine Dr. Reita Ghosh as a witness, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

(2.) In the present case, petitioner has sought decree of divorce by moving a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty and adultery. However, the adulterer has not been impleaded as a respondent. During the pendency of the petition, petitioner moved an application for permission to examine Dr. Reita Ghosh by issuing a commission to prove the Deoxyribonucleic Acid (in short 'DNA') report.

(3.) Sections 4 and Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'Act') read as under:-