IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 OP (FC).No. 10 of 2011(R) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.7.2010 IN MP.1312/2010 IN MC.37/2009 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER ------------------ N.G.RAPHEL, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, MOILAN HOUSE, P.O.OLLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. MINOR INDU RAPHEL, D/O.N.G.RAPHEL, MOILAN HOUSE, VADAKKANCHERY, PALAKKAD. 680 582. 2. MINOR LAL RAPHEL, S/O.N.G.RAPHEL, MOILAN HOUSE, VADAKKANCHERY, PALAKKAD. 680 582. 3. MINOR RIYA RAPHEL, D/O.N.G.RAPHEL, MOILAN HOUSE, VADAKKANCHERY, PALAKKAD. 680 582. (MINOR RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER VASANTHAM RAPHEL, W/O. RAPHEL, DO.) BY ADV. SHRI P. SAANTHOSH PODUVAL. zTHIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------------- O.P.(FC).NO.10 OF 2011 R ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th January, 2011 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court challenging an order passed by the Family Court, Thrissur on an Application filed by the respondents seeking a DNA test to be held. The Family Court allowed the Application filed by the respondents and what is more, directed the petitioner to pay the total expense of Rs.29,500/=. It is feeling aggrieved by the same that the petitioner is before us. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount is not at all justified. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would point out that this is a case where there is material to show that the petitioner is acknowledged as father and the respondents are minors and there is OP.(FC).NO.10 OF 2011 R 2 nothing wrong in directing the petitioner to pay the expense. Learned counsel would further contend that the respondents, in the event of the DNA test being found in favour of the petitioner, will meet the entire expense as ordered by the court and as of now, the petitioner may pay the amount. We would think that we can proceed on the suggestion of the learned counsel for the respondents, in the facts of the case. Accordingly, the Original Petition is disposed of as follows: The impugned order will stand subject to the condition that in case the DNA test is found in favour of the petitioner, the respondents shall be liable to pay to the petitioner the amount which he pays by virtue of the impugned order. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, kbk. JUDGE //True Copy// PS to Judge OP.(FC).NO.10 OF 2011 R 3