IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2007 / 5TH ASHADHA 1929 Mat.Appeal.No. 170 of 2007() ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ P.P.MOIDEEN KOYA, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. HASSAN, PARIPARAMBAN, K.T.HOUSE, V.K.PADI, P.O.MAMBURAM, VIA TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, TIRURANGADI AMSOM, MAMBURAM DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS --------------------------- 1. PAZHAYA OTTAYIL KADAMPARAMBATH BUSHARA, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. MOIDEEN KOYA, P.O.NEDUVA, CHIRAMANGALAM, VIA PARAPPANANGADI, PIN-676 303. 2. SHAMNA, AGED 5 1/2 YEARS, (MINOR), REP. BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER, 1ST RESPONDENT BUSHARA. ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER FOR R1 & R2 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2009 ALONG WITH R.P.F.C.NO.90 OF 2007, THE COURT ON 26/06/2007 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mat.Appeal No.170 of 2007 & R.P.F.C.No.90 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of June 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J The petitioner in the R.P.F.C and appellant in the Mat.Appeal is alleged to be the father of the 2nd respondent herein, an illegitimate child born to the 1st respondent. She claimed that the appellant/petitioner was the father of the illegitimate child born to her. Interim direction for payment of maintenance was issued by the Family Court. That direction was not carried out and an impugned order was passed by default consequent to the non payment of the interim maintenance after the striking off the defence of the petitioner. The petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance past and future to the 2nd respondent herein. 2. When the matter came up before this court, the parties were referred to the Lok Adalath. Before the Lok Adalath, it appears that there was an agreement to get a DNA test conducted for authentic resolution of the dispute regarding paternity. A DNA test report was secured. That showed that the M.A No.170/07 & R.P.F.C.No.90/07 2 petitioner/appellant is not the biological father of the 2nd respondent. 3. One would have expected the controversy to come to rest with that report; but it is submitted that the dispute have not yet been settled. The learned counsel for the respondent prays and the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant accepts that the matter can now be sent back to the court below with directions to the court below to dispose of the cases afresh after granting opportunities to the parties to adduce evidence. We make it clear that all evidence including evidence of the DNA test which both contestants want to adduce before the Family Court can be adduced subject to the law relating to relevancy and admissibility. The Family Court shall dispose of the matter afresh, as expeditiously as possible. The parties shall appear before the Family Court on 31/7/2009 to continue the proceedings. The DNA test report which is available in the file of this court shall also be forwarded to the court below along with the connected files. 4. These petitions are allowed to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARIRANI, JUDGE) jsr M.A No.170/07 & R.P.F.C.No.90/07 3 M.A No.170/07 & R.P.F.C.No.90/07 4 M.A No.170/07 & R.P.F.C.No.90/07 5 R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 18/06/2009