RAMCHANDRA Vs. MST. BHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, Ramchander, against the order dated 27th Feb., 1975, passed by the, District Judge, Sri Ganganagar, whereby. the District Judge rejected the application filed by the petitioner far directions regarding obtaining the sample of the blood of the respondent and her two children for the purpose of testing to establish the paternity of the children. The facts relating to the filing of the revision petition are briefly as under :

(2.) The petitioner and the respondent were married to each other in 1959. During the course of the wedlock, two children were been to the respondent, one in Oct., 1970 and the other in Jan., 1973. On 2nd June, 1973, the petitioner filed a petition under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent in the court of District Judge, Sri Ganganagar for dissolution of the marriage on the ground that respondent had committed adultery. In the aforesaid petition, the petitioner has pleaded that respondent had given birth to two children although the petitioner had never any access to the respondent and bad never had sexual intercourse with her. The averments contained in the said petition have been denied by the respondent in her written statements who has pleaded that both the children were begotten by the petitioner. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner on 23rd Aug., 1974, filed an application before the District Judge, wherein he submitted that the paternity of the two children can be established by the blood grouping of the petitioner and the respondent and the two children, at d he, therefore, prayed that direction may be given to the respondent to permit samples of blood being taken from her person and from both the children for the purpose of having the same tested for the purpose of blood grouping. The said application was opposed by the respondent on the ground that blood grouping cannot conclusively establish that the two children were not begotten by the petitioner. The learned District Judge, by his order dated 27th Feb., 1975, rejected the said application filed by the petitioner on the following two grounds:

(3.) Shri Rajendra Mehta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has challenged the correctness of both the aforesaid grounds given by the learned District judge for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel has submitted that according to the medical science, an examination of the blood groups of the parents and children can conclusively establish that the child could not be begotten by the parents. As regards the second ground giver, by the leaned District judge for rejecting the application, the learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the respondent cannot be compelled to submit to a test but he submits that the court can direct the respondent to submit to a test and in case she refused to comply with the said direction, an adverse inference can be drawn against her.