MAHENDRA Vs. MAMTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assails the order dtd. 15/3/2019 whereby the Civil Judge has rejected his application for demanding DNA test to be conducted of the son Jasdeep born to his wife on the ground that he got sonography examination done of his wife during pregnancy from one Sir Ivan Stedeford Hospital, Ambattur, Chennai which reports that his wife was pregnant for 35 weeks and 06 days as on 13/9/2017 and accordingly he calculated the period of conceiving to be before the date when he got married on 5/2/2017. It is thus his submission that his wife was pregnant prior to getting marriage and therefore, child born is not his child. The respondent denied the averments made in the application while admitting that the marriage was performed on 5/2/2017. She has stated that the petitioner has caused great physical and mental harassment and the application contains false averments. It was asserted by respondent that the pregnancy and birth of her son were on account of marriage and relationship with her husband. There is no report from the hospital where she had been undertaking her treatment and the report obtained from Sir Ivan Stedeford Hospital, Ambattur, Chennai is fictitious report. It was also stated that inspite of above, if the petitioner wants, he can get DNA test done and she does not have any objection in this regard.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this court reported in (Dalip Singh and ors. Vs. Ramesh and ors, (2017) 2 DNJ 607 (Raj).) and submits that the learned trial court has wrongly rejected the application.

(3.) I have considered the submissions and find that the trial court has proceeded to reject the application for demanding DNA test. The court below has also observed that as the petitioner was living as husband with his wife during the period of pregnancy and the marriage is still subsisting, child born from his wife would be presumed to be his son in terms of Sec.112 of the Indian Evidence Act. It has further observed that a child has to be given the status of a son where he has born in a subsisting marriage and there is, therefore, no reason to call for DNA test of a child.