DOOLAM ALIAS THALLAPLLY Vs. DOOLAM VAMSHIDHAR GOUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Y. Bala Murali, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the entire record.

(2.) This revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner aggrieved by the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Jagtial ('trial Court'), in I.A.No.173 of 2024 in H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2024, dtd. 17/9/2024, wherein a petition filed under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to direct respondent No.1 and baby girl by name Maheera ('minor child') for DNA test to ascertain the paternity of the baby girl has been allowed with a direction for respondent No.1 and minor child to appear before the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory ('FSL') for DNA test within two weeks from the date of order and a direction to the Director, FSL, to conduct DNA test and submit a report to the Court.

(3.) The background of facts leading to filing of the present revision are that respondent No.1 filed H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2024 on the file of the trial Court under Sec. 13 (1) (i) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage between himself and the revision petitioner. The H.M.O.P. is filed on the ground that the revision petitioner is having an extra marital relationship with respondent No.2 and that she is of quarrelsome nature continuously demanding to live separately from his parents apart from partitioning of the property with his parents. The revision petitioner allegedly never showed interest to live in the company of respondent No.1, but always went to her paternal house. Further, the revision petitioner was always having conversations over phone with respondent No.2 and used to hide the same. Finally, on 26/5/2022, the revision petitioner herein declared that the minor child is not daughter of respondent No.1, but is the daughter of respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 is father only for the society. The revision petitioner abused respondent No.1 in un-parliamentary language and sought divorce. In this backdrop, H.M.O.P. was filed seeking dissolution of marriage.