FORE HE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION 227 No. \ Q7 /201 $W LE MM‘H PETITIONER o PLANTIF Lafel Kumar, S/o. Shri Bisela! Kur'r'e Aged abou? 29 years, Caste-Sufnami, R/o. Village Mahkakla, P.O. Pahdor', Tahsil PafanLDisfricf burg (C.G.). VERSUS 1. Shri Biselal Kurre, 5/0. La‘re Lp‘l'u, RESPONDENTS . 9 DEPENDEN'Tg Aged abouf 56 years, Casfe—Safnami, R/o. Village & PosT— Aori, P.S. Bhilai—3, Tahsil Pa‘ran, Up-‘TahsH—Bhilai-3, Districf Durg (CG) Sm? Bhagbah W/o Shm Buselal Kur'r' Aged about 45 years Casfe Sa‘rnaml Shrl Pardeshi, S/o. La’re Shri Sukhu, Aged about 45 years, Casre—Sa'rnami, o‘m 2 & 3 R/o. Village-Mahkakla, P.$. Ufai, Tahsil Pa'ran, Disfricf Durg (6.6.). STaTe of Chhah‘isgarh, Through 1'he Collec‘ror, Districf Durg (C.G.). m: WRIT PEI'ITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BE T e B Q2”? \ HIGH COURT OF CHHA'I'I‘ISGAAH AT BILASPUR ’ M Writ Pemion (227) No. 133 of201 1 ’ ‘ (SB: Hon'hle Mr. N.K. Agnrwal,‘ .1) _ Present : Shri Arvind Kumar Du‘bey, Advocate for the Mtionera E _ Shri‘ GD Waswani, Govt. Advocate for-the State. ' ' ' ORAL ORDER (Passed oh 12.01.201 l) . 1.: Hoard on admission. 2. The plaintiE instituted a suit claiming relief of declarationregarding ‘ his ms as son of defendant No. l. As per plaint avetment, the plamw born on 15.07.1977 out of the wedlock of defendant No. ‘1“ and defendant No. 2 in village Aori, P.S. Bhilai-3, Tehsil Patan, 3 Distt. Durg, and his date ofbirth was enmd into the KotWariLBy’olg, , JWhen‘ the pkinlill‘ was aged about 5 months, the defendant No. 21 C left the house of defendant No.‘ l and married with defendant Not 3 by Churi Pratha. The plainliH‘ was not aware of this fact, When he ' Mcame major, he came toknow th;a he is in-fact son of defendant No. 1_ but heiwas brought up by defendant No. 3 and his‘name was ‘ entered into the school as his son; His mother intimated him that he a is, son of defendant No. l. There is some property belonging to the i- defendant No.'l and therefore, in order to claim his share as non of i ‘ PETITIONER : LatelKumar W Versus RESPONDENTS : Shn' BiselalKurre&Others. Dekndants WRII'PE O 227 F 0 2 20} defendant No. 1 he prefemd the suit. Plainw iiled an application ' for DNA Test. 3. The said application was dismissed by the Civil Judge Class II, Pawn, Distt. Durg vide impugned order. 4. Shri Arvind Dubey, learned counsel u appean'ng for the petitioner/plaintiff would contend that although the suit was hled almost aiter 30 years and ll years aher mining the age of majon‘ty and although as per school leaving certificateand voter list he'i’s son of defendant No; 3, butin the light to documents (Ex. P/l) he is'in- ._ fact son of defendant’No. 1 and in order.toprove‘patemity DNAW Test is necessary. 5. Having heard the counsel appearing for_the petitioner, having e perused the order impugned and having considered the fact that the 3 plaintiE and his mother both have not disclosed this fact for about ' ' " 30 years and even the plaintiE did not hlc any suit for about ll ~ years atter attaining the age of majority despite knowledge, I do not hnd any illegality or perversity in the order impugned warranting ' interference of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of ' India. o The Supreme Court in case of Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal and Another‘ has held mpata 26 oriajudg’menras under: ‘ .r ‘ “26, From the above discussion it emerges- ‘ ‘ ‘ (1) that courts in India cannot order blood test as a ‘ matter ofcourse; ' 1993 (3) scc 418 . . (2) whmver apphcauons are made for such prayers m ’ order to have rovmg mqmry, the prayer for blood - test cannot be enmed I (3) > There must be a strong puma. facie casg‘in that the husband must establish non-access in order to dispel the presumptron ansmg under Sectron 112 ' ofthe Ev1dence Act (4) The court must carefully examme as to what would a be the consequence of ordering the blood test; o, whether 1t W11] have the oh‘ect of brandmg a chrld as a bastard and the mother as an unchaste woman " (5) No one can be compelled to grve sample of blood“: _ h J for analysm 7. Further, the Supreme Court in case of Banarsi Dass~v. Teeku Duttav i: (Mm) rand Another} ha's held that : it is for the parti’eeto place evidence in support of their respective claims and establish; their : stand. DNA test is not to be directed as a mutter ofroutine. . " ' 8. As per plaintiffs own case, earlier his mother was married with w ‘ defendant No. l and he born out oftheir wedlock and only tlmeaher customary divorce took place between them and his mothermarried 1 with defendant Nor 3 by: Cheers Pratha, mererore, it is for the” plaintilf to prove that his birth took‘plaoe before her mother’s marriage with defendant No. 3 i.e. 'when his mother was legally married wife ofdefendant No. 1. It has nothing to do, with DNAvtest that too in case in which the defendant has not consented for it, and therefore, the trial court was right in refusing the prayer for DNA ‘ test; 2 2005 (4) Scc 449 9. It is well settled pn'nciple of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should re&ain itself from interfering with the order passed by ' the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, i irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 10. The petition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. Sdl- N.K. Agrawal Judge W