IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.520 of 2011 Between: Gangishetty Anupam … Petitioner and Gangishetty Kavitha … Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.520 of 2011 ORDER: The parties in this revision are the husband and wife, respectively. Assailing the order dated 23.12.2010 passed in F.C.I.A. No.328 of 2010 in F.C.O.P. No.67 of 2009 by the Judge, Family Court-cum- Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, the revision petitioner/husband filed the present revision petition. The case of the revision petitioner is that his marriage was performed with the respondent on 31.03.2000. Thereafter, the respondent gave birth to a male baby, whose name is Sai Sriram. As the respondent/wife did not like him, on account of his mental illness, and therefore, she developed illicit intimacy with one Srinivas and moved closely with him. Therefore, the main allegation of the petitioner against the respondent is that Master Sai Sriram is not born through him. In order to find out the truth, he filed the said F.C.I.A. No.328 of 2010 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act with a prayer to the Court below to direct the respondent and Master Sai Sriram to undergo D.N.A. profile in Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Uppal Road at Hyderabad. Contradicting the allegations of the petitioner, the respondent/wife filed counter stating that their marriage was performed in the year 2000 and during their wedlock only they were blessed with a male baby, Master Sai Sriram. Further, it is also submitted that the petitioner never raised the issue of parentage of the child at any point of time till he filed the case before the Court below and during the course of trial also, nothing is elicited in respect of this issue. Therefore, the question of directing the respondent and the child to undergo D.N.A. profile does not arise. The Court below, while considering the said issue, came to the conclusion that that petitioner has failed to prove conclusively that he was not having access to the respondent during the relevant time when the respondent became pregnant and delivered a child, Master Sai Sriram and dismissed the application. Assailing the same, the revision petitioner filed the present revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent became pregnant and gave birth to Master Sai Sriram through illicit intimacy having with one Srinivas. In order to prove the said fact, the petitioner filed an application before the Court below to direct the respondent and the child to undergo D.N.A. test but the Court below erroneously dismissed the application. Therefore, he requested this Court to allow the revision while setting aside the order under impugned. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The application, seeking direction for D.N.A. test, filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that in the O.P., filed by the petitioner seeking divorce, in para 3 it is stated that during their wedlock, they were blessed with the male baby, Sai Sriram, on 06.04.2006. No where in the said O.P. a specific plea was taken that Master Sai Sriram was not born through him and he was not having access to the respondent though she lived with him in his house. In the instant case, no specific plea was taken questioning alleged illicit intimacy and his parentage. It is admitted that they lived together. Therefore, mere allegation that the respondent had closely moved with one Srinivas and suspecting the circumstances of birth of the child, though the Court is not prevented from directing the parties to undergo D.N.A. test to decide the parentage of the child, the Court cannot direct the respondent and the child to undergo D.N.A. test, unless and until there is a specific plea in the main O.P. In the event of directing the respondent and the child to undergo D.N.A. test, that would amounts to allowing the petitioner to collect the evidence and to improve his case for divorce, which cannot be permitted. In that view of the above, I am of the view that the petitioner did not make out any case warranting interference of this Court with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 13.06.2011 LSK