^SW?n «W*»IBI(WiR!W!>tB"'W"^^ ?LS^^^^^^^ -€S' fe^ ?» HIGH COUKTOF-CHHATTISOARHATBILASPUR WritPetitioalC.SNb. 1918 OF 3007 PETITIONER APPLICANT Hemant Kumar yingh, son ot late Shri ChhabU Singh, agcd 35 ycars, resident of . village Sakari TahsB TakhatpLir, P.S. Distt. Bilaspur ('CG') Chakarbhata, Versua ymt. uroupacli aJias Sapna, wfle ot Heinant Kumar Singfa, aged 32 years, resident ot ynanupratappur ^CUJU.lCtj.-r'CSl 0-y uesr ^ '^da-t-^a-yKt^-t r^-»T^7 VCLdiilcxL y' nospitai,., P.y. LJIil8j.l.U^)r8.TQ-pJ3U3.; ,'iJastaF, KaaKer (UU) ) R AL OR D BR ancl T^^e?++ i-yiAi-i-. 'l'ahsu North 11-3 DIiireadfa Mislira. J. Shi'i yurvakant Mislira, Advoeate, lor tlie petitioner. KITTI N.L. yoni,. Aclvocate tor t&e responclent. 'i. BV tms petition under Articte '££1f& t&e Constitution Qt lnclla,.thG petitioner nas impugned.tl'Le order dated 23-2-2007 passed by Uie Faiiuly Couit., Bilaspur (Annexm'e P-3'r. a. 'rne responaeiit is legauy marnect wite ot.tlie petitioner. Alter maFnage, stie lett nis companv ancl started resicluig at Blianupratappur wliere slie gave birtti to a male cl'uld. on 29- 12-2004. The petitioner filed a petition for dissolutiori oftlTe maiTiage on uie ground tna.t he iias senous ctoubt about the iclenun' ot me patemity ot tlie saicl cmid. In me divorce proceeduiRs, he moved an application under Section 45 ofthe indian Kvidence Act, 1872 (Aiinexure P-1) and praved for DeoxyiTDonucteic AcidTest ('comm.onlv known as BNAtest's for contirniation ot patemityot the Giilld. , - 4. - Leamed b'asnly vovat vide t&e unpugnect ord.er re'jeGted' me aRplicaUon witfi an observatiton tnat wtieftier ttie appUGant is tattier ot' the child OT not can be aecidefl oiitY 'r- atter evKtenceanaUNAtestlsnotiiecessan'.; rt i'^€>; :;^. ~^: !' 5. \Leameq GQunsel;tor tlie petitioner argaea. tnst tte petition.er was readv to bear the expenses tewards DNA test. The fact regardmg patemity of tfae child could be established by scienttfic test and tnis woiild not cause aiiy prejudice to Uie responaent. 'l'ne mspute can Oe resoivea betiveen me Daities tfme paten'iitv ofthechUdis established bv scientiflc test. ; • ' ! : . . : 1 6. On the other haiid, leamed counsel fbr tne respondent relying upon the judgment tn tlie matter of Smt. Nlagamma and another ^•y^CfaiK&aiaIiandanptaer1 contended that a person cannot be compeUed to undergo medicat examination witnout ner consent anct agamst ner wisues as Uie satne tantamounts to interierence 'wifh her fundaEiental right of life and libertv. Section 112 read witlii Section 4 of the Indiaii E'videnGe Act completely debars any party from leadliig anv otner evidence except as provictecl micler tUe aDove seGtion wmcn. eiivisages tliat butn d.Lmng contuiuance ol a valicl marriage is conciusive proot mat me person is I^itimate son of that maa miless it cail be shown tliat the parties to the marriage had no access to each ottaer at any potnt ol' tlme whenhe could haye begotten. 7. I have heard leamea counsel forfhe parties. . The Hon'ble Supreme Court m the matter of Banarsi Das -v- Teefcu Dutta (MrsJ_and.aBoth^r2,mparaaTaph 13 has heldtha.tm view of Section 1 i2 of fhe Inaian E'vidence Act, Uie result ot the genuine scientflie test is not enougn to escape from the eonclusiveness of Section 112 ofthe E'vidence Act. e.g., if a fausband ana wife were living together durmg fee time of coneeption but ,the DNA test Teyealed that fhe chUd was not Doni to Uie tiusDand, tlie conciusiveness in. Jaw would remain irrebiittablfi. tt is further held irt paragraph. 14 ' AIR^OOOKARNATAKA 50 ~ (2005) 4 BCC 449 f ir. L?r Bf s%K ?T?3i VSW-iW-S^^ '-<. that DNA test is not t6 be aiirected as a matter dt Tdutine and only m desei'ving cases, sycli a ciu-eetion can be given. 9. Inthe instant case, since there is no dispute fhatthe petitioner and the respondent were hustiand aad wtfe and the Gtuld was born dunng contmuance ot' tl'ieir marn.age; ftie factiimol.pateriufryofthechildbom through their wed.lock caii De conclusively esta&Usned. m. accoraaace wim yection ll'2 ot ttie Kvictenee Act, ancl suoiectmg ttie ctiua to UNA test would De an exercise in tutUit^'. 10. For the aforesaid reasons; tfae order of fhe Kaiauy Court, oUaspur reiecting. tus application uncter Becuon 45 01 Uie E'vidence Act is strictly m aecordance with law and ho uiterterenee is called: tor by Uus uourt in exercise ot me lunsdiclion mider Arucie '££!ot uie Uonstitutron ot inaia. 11. Thepetdionis<accoTdmglydismKised. \ Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge -fe// f»