SUNITA DEVI AND ANOTHER Vs. MAKHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioners have prayed for quashing of order dated 4th Oct., 2017, passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur at Rckong Peo, on an application filed under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act by the present respondent allowing his request for directing the parties to give their blood samples for DNA test to ascertain the factum of the paternity of petitioner No.2 (Master Arvind).

(2.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are as under. In proceedings filed by the petitioners against respondent under Sec. 125 of the Crimial P.C. seeking grant of maintenance, an application was filed under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act by the present respondent for ordering the DNA test of the parties for fortifying the parentage of petitioner No.2 (Master Arvind). As per averments made in the application, the applicant therein denied any access to petitioner No.1 after the year 2010 and on these basis his contention was that petitioner No.2, who was born during the pendency of the petition filed under Sec. 125 of the Crimial P.C. was not his son. It was further mentioned in the application that in the course of recording of evidence in proceedings under Sec. 125 of Crimial P.C. it came in knowledge that petitioner No.1 was having physical relationship with one Shri Dharam Singh and that petitioner No.2 was in fact son of Dharam Singh. It was thus prayed in the application that the said fact as to whether petitioner No.2 was the son of the applicant-respondent or not could only be determined by conducting a DNA test of the parties to the lis.

(3.) This application was contested by present petitioners on the ground that false and bald allegations stood leveled against petitioner No.1 about her allegedly having relations with one Shri Dharam Singh, whose identity even was not disclosed in the application. Averments made in the application were denied in totality in the reply.