IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1930 RPFC.No. 216 of 2007() ----------------------------------- MCA. NO.430/2004 OF FAMILY COURT, MANJERI. .... REVISION PETITIONER (S) RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- PARIYARAM SUBRAMANIAN, S/O.SANKARAN, MOOCHIKKUNDI HOUSE, NEDIYIRUPPU COLONY, ARIMBRA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- SAMLAL ALIAS MANU, AGED 6 YEARS, (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY THE GUARDIAN MOTHER CHALAKKANDI VASANTHA, D/O.CHATHAN, MOOCHIKKUNDU, NEDIYIRUPPU COLONY, P.O.ARIMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.MA. NO.5647/2007 IN RP(FC) NO.216/2007 Dismissed 27.02.2009 SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHIDE, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P(F.C.) NO. 216 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of February, 2009. O R D E R This revision is filed to set aside the order of maintenance granted in favour of the petitioner in M.C.430/04. The very case of the respondent in the petition is that the revision petitioner had subjected his mother to forcible intercourse and he was born in the said connection. This had been stoutly opposed by the revision petitioner. The trial court correctly directed to have a DNA test and when the matter was posted on 17.1.2005 the present revision petitioner did not attend whereas the mother and child attended. He was absent on the next day as well. Therefore he was declared exparte and he was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- to the minor son. It is aggrieved by that decision the revision petitioner has come up before this Court. The peculiar facts of this case reveal that even the case of the petitioner is that he was born out of a forcible intercourse alleged to have been committed by the revision R.P(F.C.) NO. 216 OF 2007 -:2:- petitioner. So necessarily when a contention is raised disputing the paternity it is better to have a scientific precision so as to arrive at a correct decision. It is true that there are laches on the part of the petitioner but that should not militate against his right to have a proper defence in the case. For the laches on his part, that is, for being absent on the date, I feel the whole thing can be resolved by directing him to bear the expenses for the DNA test including the travelling expenses of the mother and child. Therefore the revision petition is allowed and the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Family Court for fresh consideration with a further direction to direct the parties to undergo DNA test at the expense of the revision petitioner including the travel expenses of the mother and child. As a matter of interim arrangement there will be a further direction to pay at the rate of Rs.500/- per month as maintenance to the minor child. The parties can co-operate R.P(F.C.) NO. 216 OF 2007 -:3:- for an expeditious disposal so that there will be a finality on the matter. The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 23.3.2009. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-