DILIP BASKEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.2.2013 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 18 of 2007, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for DNA test for ascertaining the parentage of the petitioner, has been rejected by the Court below.

(2.) From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that one Chaitali Baskey, claiming herself to the daughter of the petitioner, has the filed application for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C., alleging that the petitioner had established physical relationship, with her mother, due to which, she became pregnant and subsequently, she gave birth to the applicant. Claiming herself to be the illegitimate child of the petitioner, the application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., has been filed.

(3.) The impugned order shows that at the very initial stage, the petitioner denied the allegation and filed an application for DNA test of the petitioner and the applicant, as also the mother of the applicant, for establishing the parentage of the petitioner and the said application was dismissed at that time giving liberty to the petitioner to move the application afresh at the time of evidence of the petitioner. Subsequently, after closing the evidence of the applicant, the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner and during the pendency of the case at the evidence stage of the petitioner, the petitioner again filed an application for DNA test on 20.2.2013. The impugned order shows that no rejoinder was filed by the applicant, rather at the time of hearing, only the Advocate of the applicant objected the prayer of the petitioner and the application of the petitioner was rejected solely on the ground that the case was pending for evidence of the petitioner for about one and half years and in order to delay the disposal of the case, the said application had been filed by the petitioner. The Court below has accordingly, found no merit in the application.