@3 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. [c] NO.2014[08 I Rukesh Diwnn, (Advoca‘l'e), aged abou‘r 42 years, 5/0. Lara 5hri Kuieshwardhar Diwan, R/o Shiv Chowk, Rawsugurpura Ward, Dham'fari, Tahsil and Disffg. Dham'mri (C.G.) 1. Sfa're of CHhgffisgEarh, fhrough fhe , Dit Vs s RESPONbENT Dhamfar'i (C.6.) J 2. Aishwardhar Diwnn,! aged abou? 2%- years, S/o 5hri Rakésh Diwan, Through natural guardian mofhgr Asha Diwan. 3. Vishal Diwan, aged aBou'r 4 years, 5/0. Shri Rakesh Diwan, Through natural guardian mother Asha Diwan. 4.‘Ashu Diwan, W/o. 5hri Rakesh Diwan, aged abouf Z8 years. Respondenf No.2, 3 & 4 are residenf of Dak Bangia Ward, Dham'rari (C6) (Name of respondem' no.4, has been wri'r‘ren as “Ashe Kashyap" in fhe various documen'rs of ‘rhe Siafe aufhori'iies as we" as in Criminal Case pending before J.M.F.C. Dham'fari.) Present: Mr. Shravan Agarwai, Advoca‘ie for 'rhe pefi‘rioner. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Government Advocafe for ihe Sfai'e. O R D E R (Passed on g1.4.2008 Per Dhirendra Mishra J‘ 1. The pe'i'i'rioner has filed fhis pe'i'i'i'ion under Arficie 226/227 of fhe Consfi‘rufion of India wifh The avermenfs fhaf on fhe applica‘i'ion of responden'r No.2 fa 4 under Secfion 125 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for shorT ‘Cr.P.C.') The 1" AddiTional Principal Judge, Raipur Camp DhamTari vide order daTed 24.3.2008 passed in Miso. Criminal Case. No.403/2005 has awarded mainTenanoe of Rs.750/- per monTh w.e.f. from 17.10.2003 To respondenT No.2—Aishwarya Dhar Diwan a child aged abouT 21- years wri'h a prima fame finding ThaT Deoxy Ribonucleic Acid TesT (DNA) reporT establishes ThaT The peTiTioner is The faTher‘of The respondenT No.2 herein. sf ) 2 Learned counsel for ‘rhe pe'rmoner submrrs fha‘f he has already filed a crlmmal comphanf againsf fhe respondenf No 4 who fraudulen‘riy claims +0 be his wrfe and offence has been reglsfered ugams‘r her In The police sfafion and charges under Sechons 420 466 468 471 478 r/w 34 of The IPC have been framed In Crimina! Case No 359/04 by fhe Chief Judlcml Maglsfrafe Dham‘rari which Is pending of presen'r as Crlmmai Case . No 43/06 before 1'he JudICIaI Maglsfrafe 1" Class Dham'rarl The cour'r below relying upon The so called DNA TesT has reached To The conclusion ThaT The peTlTloner ls The faTher of sald Alshwarya Dhar, Though There is serious doubT abouT The veraciTy of alleged DNA TesT. 3. I have heard learned counsel for The parTles. ‘ 4. From perusal of The record lT appears ThaT The respondenT No 2 To 4 had moved an applicaTlon before The Chief Judicial MagisTraTe for conducTin DNA TesT To esTablish paTerniTy of respondenT No 2 «Si 3 however Their applicaTion was reJecTed by The Chief Judicml MagisTraTe Dham'ra ThereafTer a peTiTion under SecTion 482 of Cr P C was filed before This Hon ble CourT and in The said proceeding iT was direcTed ThaT parTies To The proceedings shall make Themselves available for necessary DNA TesT and in case of refusal by any of The parTies iT shall be lawful for The courT To draw adverse inference in accordance wiTh law ThereafTer on The order of The courT DNA TesT was conducTed and reporT confirms ThaT The peTiTioner is The faTher of respondenT -Aishwarya Dhar. . Considering The above facT I am of The considered opinion ThaT The Trial courT has noT commiTTed any illegaliTy, infirmiTy or jurisdicTional error in passing The impugned order daTed 2432008 (Annexure P-9 & P 10) warranTing inTerference in exerCise of JurisdicTion under ArTicle 227 of The ConsTiTuTion of India . In The resulT The peTiTion has no subsTance The same deserves To be dismissed and accordingly, iT is hereby dismissed in liminee, Sd/_ i i l l . Dhirendra Mishra ,, i ' Judge g ri