IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.R.C.No.91 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 Subramani … Petitioner /Respondent Vs. 1.Kunjayee @ Marayee 2.Minor Dhanalakshmi represented by guardian/mother Kunjayee @ Marayee … Respondents /Petitioner Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 10.12.2010 made in Crl.M.P.No.4261 of 2010 in M.C.No.11 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate I, Sankari. For Petitioner : Mr.C.S.Saravanan for Mr.G.Ethirajalu For Respondents : Mr.P.Valliappan ******* O R D E R This revision challenges the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Sankari, passed in Crl.M.P.No.4261 of 2010 in M.C.No.11 of 2007 dated 10.12.2010. 2. The Court below dismissed a petition moved by the petitioner herein seeking conduct of DNA test. The petitioner disputed the parentage of a girl aged about 18 years. The Court below under orders dated 10.12.2010 dismissed the petition on the reasoning that as early as in the year 1993 the birth certificate of the girl reflected the petitioner's name as the father and further in a registered Will executed by the petitioner's father he had been shown as the husband of the mother of the girl. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it was the contention of the petitioner that the documents relied upon by the respondents were fabricated documents. Though learned counsel for the petitioner would seek to impress this Court that a DNA test would put an end to the dispute, learned counsel for the respondents would seek to maintain the order of the Court below informing that even in the family ration card the mother of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ girl had been shown as the wife of the petitioner. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the case is not one wherein a DNA test could be directed. The Court below rightly has considered that it is unlikely that documents of very much earlier dates could have been fabricated towards serving the purpose of supporting a claim for maintenance made much later. 5. In the result, the Criminal Revision stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Asst Registrar gm To 1. The Judicial Magistrate I, Sankari. 2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. +1 CC to M/S.C.S.Saravanan, Sr.No.65417 +1 CC to M/S.P.Valliappan, Sr.No.65500 CO-RV ths : 18.11.2011 Crl.R.C.No.91 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 29.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/