ARVINDER SINGH Vs. ANURADHA CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition stands directed against the impugned rendition of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, H.P., whereby it dismissed an application preferred before it by the petitioner with a prayer therein for its ordering the holding of a DNA test by the expert concerned for determining the paternity of minor Aditiya. The application aforesaid stood instituted in a Hindu Marriage Petition at the instance of the petitioner herein, wherein there is a pointed averment of there existing no cohabitation inter se the petitioner and the respondentwife since 10.8.2006 upto 28.4.2008 whereat the respondent gave birth to minor Aditiya. Hence, it stood averred by the petitioner of minor Aditiya delivered by the respondent on 28.4.2008 standing not begotten from his loins rather his birth being attributable to the respondent No.1 herein holding an adulterous relationship with an unknown person. In the impugned rendition, it stands propounded of the stigma of bastardization standing imputed to the minor child in the event of the out-come of the DNA profiling of the blood samples of the petitioner herein with the DNA profiling of the blood samples of the minor child standing opined by the expert concerned to be not matching, constituting the predominant reason for its rejecting the apposite application preferred therebefore by the petitioner herein besides therein it stands propounded of the apposite application preferred therebefore at the instance of the petitioner herein entailing rejection on the score of its standing preferred thereat at a inchoate stage significantly when evidence remained yet to be adduced on the apposite issues.

(2.) The impugned rendition of the learned trial Court is completely off the mark qua the legal principles to be borne in mind by Courts of law while adjudicating upon an application preferred therebefore by a person, who denies, on account of infidelity or unchastity of his wife, the factum of his fathering the child delivered by his purportedly unchaste wife. The apt legal principles whereof stand encapsulated in a judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court report in Bhabani Prasad Jena Vs. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women and another, 2010 8 SCC 633, relevant paragraphs stand extracted hereinafter:

(3.) Since in the afore extracted paragraphs of the rendition of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the competent court seized of an issue devolving upon the paternity of a child stands clothed with jurisdiction to pass an order for the holding of DNA profiling of the person who denies his fathering the child delivered by his purportedly unchaste wife alongwith the DNA profiling of the child, paternity whereof stands denied by the aggrieved. Since the learned trial Court stood seized of a Hindu Marriage Petition instituted by the petitioner herein with pointed and categorical averments constituted therein of the minor child delivered by the respondent standing not begotten from his loins rather his birth being an outcome of an adulterous relationship which the respondent entered into with an unknown person, aroused by the factum of both living apart or both not cohabiting since August, 2006, uptil the respondent delivered the baby child thereupon its constituting a vivid portrayal of both the petitioner and the respondent not holding any opportunity to stand engaged in sexual intercourse, necessarily hence it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court to for setting at rest the pertinent issue of minor Aditiya standing begotten or not begotten from the loins of the petitioner herein, to order for the holding by an expert concerned of DNA profiling of blood samples of minor Aditiya along with the DNA profiling of the blood samples of the petitioner herein. The ordering of by the learned trial Court the holding of the apposite DNA test by an expert concerned would also have set at rest the assertion of the petitioner qua infidelity of the respondent. Furthermore, the holding of a DNA test and its outcome both being a well approbated scientific method for setting at rest the pertinent issue qua the paternity of a child, issue whereof arose in a litigation qua which the learned trial Court stood seized of, its standing ordered by it to be held by the expert concerned was apt, significantly given its scientificity it would have forthrightly clinched the issue qua minor Aditiya standing or standing not begotten from the loins of the petitioner herein. Even though the holding of a DNA test is conclusive besides its outcome is the best evidence for determining the issue of paternity nonetheless the learned trial Court in declining the prayer of the petitioner qua its standing directed to be held, appears to stand guided by the stigma of bastardization standing imputed to the minor child in case the out come of the DNA test leans in favour of the assertion set up by the petitioner qua his not fathering minor child Aditiya. However, the aforesaid obstacle of a stigma of bastardization standing imputed to the minor child in case the out come of the DNA test leans in favour of the petitioner, as stands propounded by the learned trial Court for its omitting to order for its holding, is a flimsy and specious reason which stands benumbed by a judgement of the Apex Court Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik vs. Lata Nandlal Badwaik and another, 2014 2 SCC 576, relevant paragraphs 17 to 19 stand extracted hereinafter.