MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Rohit, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3.

(2.) This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dtd. 4/4/2014 passed in Maintenance Case No. 318 of 2012 whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih has allowed the petition dtd. 5/8/2013 filed by the O.P. No. 2 for DNA test of the petitioner and O.P. No. 3 in order to allegedly prove the legality and genuineness of the birth of O.P. No. 3 from the wedlock of the petitioner and O.P. No.2, pending in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih.

(3.) Mr. Rohit, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that O.P. No. 2 had filed the Maintenance Case No. 318 of 2012 on 16/10/2012 under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. stating therein that she is married with the petitioner on 15/4/2011 according to Hindu religious custom and out of the said wedlock she had given birth to the O.P. No.3 on 12/7/2012. He submits that the petitioner had filed his show cause in Maintenance Case No. 318 of 2012 stating therein that the petition under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the O.P. No. 2 is not maintainable as the petitioner had never been married to the O.P. No. 2 on the alleged date and he also falsified the allegation that out of the alleged wedlock O.P. No. 3 had born on 12/7/2012. He submits that the O.P. No. 2 filed a petition for DNA test of the petitioner which was allowed by the impugned order. He further submits that DNA test is required to be directed to be conducted in proper case if prima facie case is made out. According to him the marriage is disputed and that is why the direction of DNA test is against the mandate of law.