HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 62 of 2007 Kulbhushan S/o Sri Shyamendra Bhusan, R/o 217, Purvi Deen Dayal, Roorkee, District Haridwar. ----Applicant/Revisionist. Versus 1.State of Uttarakhand, 2.Smt. Sunita D/o Sardari Lal, R/o 15 Brinch Villa, Vishnu Garden, P.S. Kankhal Distt. Haridwar. ------- Respondents None is present for the revisionist. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, holding brief of Sri Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1. Dated: August 6, 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This revision preferred u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) directed against the order dated 04.04.2007 passed by Judge, Family Court, Hridwar in case no. 169 of 2002 Smt. Sunita and ors. vs. Kulbhushan by which the learned Trial Court allowed the application of the respondent no.2-wife for conducting D.N.A. test of the revisionist Kulbhushan and his daughter Km. Rakhi @ Roopam. Both the parties were directed to appear in person before the Court for taking samples to conduct D.N.A. test. It is further directed that in absence of any party adverse inference will be drawn. 2. List has been revised, but none has responded on behalf of the revisionist. I have heard Sri Mohd. Safdar holding brief of Sri Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1 and perused the record as well as the order impugned. 3. From the record is reveals that a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent no.2 Smt. Sunita against the revisionist-Kulbhushan for awarding maintenance, which is 2 pending before the Trial Court and during pendency of the petition, the respondent no.2-wife moved application that the revisionist is denying herself to be his wife and Km. Rakhi @ Roopam to be his daughter. It is stated that marriage in between her and the revisionist was solemnized on 19.01.1998 and one daughter, namely Km. Rakhi @ Roopam was born on 19.04.2000 out of the wedlock. It is prayed that for ascertaining genetics of Km. Rakhi @ Roopam; a D.N.A. Test is required. It is preyed that D.N.A. test of the revisionist as well as Km. Rakhi @ Roopam may be conducted on her own expenses. The revisionist objected the same and stated that, in case, D.N.A. test would be conducted, the family would be scattered. Having heard learned counsel for the parties the Court below vide the impugned order dated 04.04.2007 directed for conducting D.N.A. test of the revisionist and Km. Rakhi @ Roopam. Both the parties were directed to appear in person before the Court for taking samples to conduct D.N.A. test. It is further directed that in absence of any party; adverse inference will be drawn. Feeling aggrieved with this order, the revisionist has come up in the instant revision. 4. From perusal of the impugned order of the Court below it is evident that evidence of both the parties in the petition filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. has been concluded and the case is ripe for judgment. It further revealed that in support of his version, the revisionist has filed photographs of the marriage, which is allegedly been solemnized in between the respondent no. 2 with some other person. The respondent-wife in support of her version has also annexed the photographs of her marriage. Considering the disputed facts, the Court below found that before determining liability of maintenance, D.N.A. test is necessary and accordingly the Trial Court allowed the application of the respondent no.2-wife for conducting D.N.A. test of the revisionist Kulbhushan and the daughter Km. Rakhi @ Roopam and both the parties were directed to appear in 3 person before the Court for taking samples to conduct D.N.A. test. It was further observed that that in absence of any party adverse inference will be drawn. In my opinion, the Trial Court has not committed any manifest error of law in reaching to the conclusion that D.N.A. test is necessary in arriving at a just conclusion. Hence, the order impugned is justified and does not warrant any interference at this stage. 5. Otherwise also on a bare perusal of the impugned order, I do not find any illegality, irregularity, incorrectness or impropriety in the order dated 04.04.2007 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Haridwar. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. Both the parties are directed to appear in person before the Court below for making compliance of the order of the Trial Court. (Dharam Veer, J.) 06.08.2008 NCM: