1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 403 of 2007 Gajanan Dattatraya Khoshe Vs. Vanmala Gajanan Khoshe Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri P. B. Patil & M. R. Gupta Adv. for appellant. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 30 th April, 2008. This is an appeal by unsuccessful petitioner. The petitioner had filed a petition for divorce on the ground that his wife was pregnant at the time of marriage from some other person than him. Trial Court found as a fact that the contention as raised by the 2 petitioner was not correct and due to the presumption available under Section 112 of the Evidence Act child must be said to have been born to the petitioner. It was found that since the child was born within 280 days of the lawful marriage the child cannot be treated as bastard and it cannot be said that at the time of marriage the respondent was pregnant. Holding so trial Court dismissed the petition for divorce. First appellate Court concurred with the finding of the trial Court and relying on the presumption available under Section 112 held that the child born to the petitioner and the respondent was born out of the wedlock and that it cannot be held that the respondent was pregnant at the time of marriage from some other person. Learned counsel for the appellant contended before me that trial Court had 3 wrongly rejected the application for having a blood test of the child. He contended that had the blood test been taken it would have proved whether the child was born from the petitioner or not. In this regard I find that the trial Court did not commit any error in rejecting that application. Law on the question is well settled. Supreme Court in Goutam kundu Vs. State of West Bengal and another A. I. R. 1993 Supreme Court 2295, has held that Court in general cannot order blood test of the child because in that case there is a risk of child being branded as bastard and in the circumstances the Court should not resort to such blood test at all. In view of this decision and the presumption in Evidence Act, I do not find that the Courts below have at all misappreciated any evidence on the record or that finding of the 4 Courts below is perverse. There is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. It is dismissed in limine JUDGE svk