/''iF^ cs H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR W.P.(Q No. 1010 of 2007 y~v_._.r~. A^I _'' Petiti< Versus Sharik Ahmad (Advocate) S/o Mohmmad Gani, aged about 40 years, R/o near Gokui Bhawan, Stes! City Bhiia!, Tah. & Distt. Durg (C.G.) Respondent Sundar Lal, S/o Sarik Ahmad, Aged about 4 years, Through minor Guardian Motiier - Smt. Kiran Bai Mahsr, R/o Rsss'ibhafcha Bhilai, P/s Newai, Tah. & Distt. Durg (C.G.). : Hon'bie Mr. Jusfce Satish K. Agnihotrl, J Shri Vjpin Tiwari, Advocafe for the pstitioner. ORDER on friis 12th day of Mareh, 2007) 1. By thte pefition, filed yndsr Articte 227 of the Constitution of india, the ieb'Boner seeks to chaitenge She imptigned order dated 12.6.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Family Court, Durg, in M.J.C. No. 277/2SX)6 (Sunder Lal Vs. Sharik Ahmad), whereby She application fited by the respondenS for direction to the petjtioner So undergo D.N.A. test, has been aliowsd by the Court beiow. 2. The brjef facts, in nutehe!', are that the respondent (minor) has filed an appiication under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance to be granted from the petitioner on ttie ground of belng son born from him and Srnt. Kiran Bai. The peSISjoner aiiured Smt. Kiran Bai, a widov/. on ttse promise that he wouid marr,' her and developed phy^ica! i-ssl-Qt-^yS^ A.?? ^ ?'SL!?St!!+ Ki^t-iiiil^. t^ss^ <»">i/4 s'.tt-'S'*'S/<in<»t»*n^•&+»^iA^'tFt Ah.n Ft..ft^tN/st^. iSFi.iUVIiS, f~Sf s i^3Uis,^ WiUIIH Uii? ^ciiU )S?i<iUynS3)iip P^lWSSii liic F^UUvH^ e'-g'S.-^ C'?vsf t^fF-^*^ D/*i +H& yde?»^^>»»/<t<s?»*/»v*it^<ft.r\ tit/.^1' I^-->*>F* .^n 7 .OCiiU ^?tilt. rxiiCili I.^Hii li iC f'Ga^Vt IUS?iil ViiiijUI; WCiTi? Jrf^tit VI i f ,U.£,^V£,. •? ^'hs& ?'^s^*fi/»"^r i4^sr"^^nl fKd ?'alis*f"d^*?'i ^tf ¥t&*pifV fvi't^^y /\f W^s ?r£ssr»/^?'>-nfsr?fr !yi ^. 't li^ p^iiU^iis;! u^iii^j IUS? ISitaUvii^iiiM yi i^?lliy iciiiiv? W ui^ iS^I/yiiy^lii. iii ;*¥^^P tf* .a^f-at^ii.sl^ f'H^sf •i'Hs 8"^&?^^nt?<^ldr*f'/n'<i?!A?\ (G E^^r?^ ^' *^ ^^f i^^* '"t^tf^s^'Ql iv tf^kCii^liSii Uicili uj^i i<?S?pViiUSiifcyiijiiVi/ l& i/viii vui Vi Uis; pitjf&iLiCi) reiations of SmS. Ki'ran Bai and the petitloner, the application dated 10.11.2006 was fiied for a direction to the petitioner te undergo D.N.A. test. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^'^^'••^^^-^^^^^^^•^•'^ -I.;^i^^£ssih*lrI^.V<'- .•/. r^, 4~ .^•3Sf*^-''t?'l ^•^S St^ t^^I/aSAJ hj^ts:WfV f*^,l^f-is'4str>t^4 -^II 41^.^ •P-I^.A<>C» -i^ytji^ ^'•IrjAi tnf»ct1>/«p»j>i^\fi)^ii.f iii. y^i^W, itEiViliy ^VI ii?i\4^i i>?U ciii iii^ i<avl& Qiiy ;LiijfcrUiij^teiifc¥S vj th®case ailov/ed fche application fited by ttse respondent (minor) and djrscted the respondert to furnlsh a bank draft in a sum of Rs. 16.530/-, Jn fa'v'our of Director, C.D.F.D.. Haydrabad. towards charges of D.N.A. test of the petitioner. ^ t-S.^tt^/t •QfVtFlss\f^^ JH^a n^*'ll''^t/i»'A*" H'?se? •^I^^'I +Mtf* (^/^tW^Mn /•»yi th^ <n»-,^fiy?>.?^ rt^'af- >/^ <^. o^iiiy tayyii^¥<?u Uis y^»uvii^?i ii<3& iii<sy liiii? ^%?HUVii Vil uis? yivyiiu Uidl iiiii.; D.N.A. test shou'd not be ordered in a rouh'ne course. Before directing for D.N.A. test ofthe petifioner, tesrned Court bstow ought to have directed ttie respondent to establish his case by cogent evidence. !n support of his case, leamed counsel for She petitioner cited a decision of Hon'bte Supreme Court in ths csse of Amrit Singh v. Stete of Punjab (A!R 2(X)7 SC 132) and submite fhat the pstitioner cannot be forcsd to undergo D.N.A. test to create evidsnce againsf htmseif. The petitioner cannot be mads a witness against himseif, against his vfl!! in view of She provisfons of Articte 20(3) of the Consfifution of india which provides that no person, accused of any offence, shal! be compeited to be a witness against hiinself. 6. The direcfion in the present cass to {hs peStioner So undergo D.N.A. Test is with the purpose to estabiish the fact that the rsspondent is born out of the petltioner's physicai reiations wQ} the mother of the respondent. The direcSJon jssued by the tearned Court betov/ is in a proceeding under Section 125 of ttie Code of Criminal Procedure fiied by th®responds,"{(minor) for grant of monthty maintenancs ailov/ance from She petitionsr. This direction is not in a criminal case where ttse petitioner is charged as an accused; Sierefore, he cannot piead the provisions of Artide 20(3) of the Constitution oflndis. 7. !S is weli settied that mere!y because one of the partses has disputed the factum of pateinifr/ does not mean ttiat the Court. v,ithouS examining other evidencss to prove or disprove the factum of paterniSy, strasghtway direc^the D.N.A. tsst. The Court shouid firet examine other ewdences produced by the •F+*&^ */<> s/*i'''t^U^i' +t<^ n^t+op'in^/ ^iF tl^.^ /ktiH^I ^t^h? !»>» <4>Es ^^<^^< tiUOD i,v 'c'i?fcciLfiii3ii ii is pcii.Cttlii.y Vj Ui^; ^/iiliu. \/itiy 111 Ui^ S/eii»^, lii< Court is unabte or itis impossible to draw an inference or adverss inferenes on the basis ofsuchan evidence and issue cannot be resolved <i¥i{houtD.N.A. tsst, 'A may dirert D.N.A. test and not otheroise. !n other words, on!'/ in excepSonai and rsre cases where such test becomes indispensabte So save the child from being stigmabzed as a son of unknov/n father. 8. Ths Hon'bie Supreme Court in ttie matter of Banarsi Dass Vs. Teeku Dutte (Mrs) and another { (2005) 4 SCC 448}, wherein the question of law invo!ved v/as whethsr a direction for deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA$ test can be given in a proceeding for corning to a condusion ynder the Succession Act, 1925, he!d Shat DNA Sest cannot be directed as a matter of routine and only in desen/iw cases sueh a direction can be given. 9. The patemifry' of the child can be proved from other evidences from the fact that both the persons v/ere having ph'^ica! retetions, when Kiran Bai conceived and a child was born during that period, as a resuit of their relationship. This is for a person who is interested in denying ttie factum of physicaS relations and birtfi of a chiid during Shat period to rebut the aitegation of the mother of the son. Appi'^ng the wel! settted principies of tew, to the facte of the present case, iS appears that the Court beiow has not examined the patemfty on the basis of other evidences before directing DNA tsst. tO.Thus, Shis pefflion is partiy ailowed to the above extent. The matter is remitted back to e Family Court, Durg with a direction to dscide the sssue on the basis of other evidences before passing a direction for DNA test in l /"• Mn o77nfwia /p_, inriar 1 al t/c Shsrit- Ahm3?C JVi.^.t-r. t'-VV. £.ff/£WV^uHyC) L-cii VS. Oitrtlin ftliiiiciU/, Consecsuently, M(W)P No. 643/2007 stands dismissed. c< Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur