rl 29 CR No1771 of 2008 1 1 r iNTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB 8 HARYANA CHANDIGARH CR No1771 of 2008 Dateof decision Marchl6 2009 Pawan Kumar Petitioner Versus Veena Rani Respondent 1 CORAM HONBLE MRJUSTICE K KANNAN Present Mr ShivrajAngi Advocate 0 for the petitioner C0 Nonefor the respondent C5 I k711V 1 lNhetherreportersof Iocal papers may be allowed Z to see thejudgment 2 2 To be referredto the reporters or not7 C 3 Whether thejudgment should be reported in the digest2 I a5 K Kannan J 1 Ina matrimonialpetition for dissolutionof marriage 7 the pattiesby a decree of divorce on the groundthat the wife had tl sexualintercoursewith a person otherwisethan the petitionerand she had children born such other person the husband moved an for iSsuance of a direction to produceherself and children Robinand Muskan for DNA test to be conducted to ascertain the paternity ofthe children The Court below had found that the applicationhad been filedonly to prolongthe Iitigationand that the petitionerhad not even disclosed any details of the person who was allegedto be in illicit relation withthe respondentThe Court also found that the petitionerhad availed a number of to conclude his evidence and he had also not cleared the arrears of maintenance payableto the wife The Court Kumar Suresh 2013.01.10 16: 47 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 30 9p V CR No1771 of2008 2 the himself and the Coun found that Olingof such application to obtainevidence regarding the paternityof the children would aHect the mindsof the minors who had committed no fault for the startingof the Iitigation 2 Everyone of the reasons givenbythe Court below for rejecting the prayer is weightyenoughnot to be intetfered in revision InAmarieetKaur Vs HarbhaianSinqh and another JT 200219 SC 440 was a case that was decided by the SupremeCourt from a matterthat C went from this Court The Court had held that the partyto a proceeding 0 C3 cannot be compelledto undergo such test The Court considered the issue In the context of a claim for maintenance by the wife and the Court C5 I imposing a condition of DNA test and directingcessation of maintenanceif Z the result was not in her favour as regardsher progeny The Supreme 2 Court actuallyfollowed its own earlier dictum in Gautam Kundu Vs State of Wes Benqal reported Ill JT 1993 131SC443 wherethe Coun had I a5 declared the Iegalpositionas to the circumstances under which and the Iimitationsto be observed in compellinganyone to givea sampleof blood V7 Z againsthis or her will for DNA test keeping in view the serious consequencesflowingfrom the same The possibility of brandingof the children as bastards and the motheras an unchaste woman had gone into the reckonirigof the Court below when it obsenied that the children themselves were stayingwith the petitionerand it would be too harsh to subjectthem to any test doubtingtheir OWll paternityIn yet another decision of the SupremeCoun in Sh Banarsi Dass Vs Mrs Teeku Dutta and anotherJT 2005 SC 627the SupremeCourt while dealingwith a petitionunder IndianSuccession Act for issuance of succession ceniOcate it found the DNA test is not to be directed as a matterof routinebut onlyin deserving cases The trial Court itself had set out the circumstances such as the conduct of the husband who was deliberatelydelayingthe 1 Kumar Suresh 2013.01.10 16: 47 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 31 1 CR No1771 of 2008 3 and harassingthe wife The ultimate decision rejectingthe claim bythe husband accords with Iaw as Iaid down bythe SupremeCourt and calls for no interference 3 The Civil revision petition IS accordingly dismissed IK KANNANI JUDGE March2b2009 I archana 0 fle C C5 I Z 2 I 08 7 Z Y Kumar Suresh 2013.01.10 16: 47 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document