IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17933 of 2009(R) -------------------------- IA 1088/2009 IN OP.363/2009 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- YUNAS ALI, S/O.ALI, AGED 28 YEARS, MOOTHEDAN HOUSE, KANNIKKADAVU, KUNNUMMALPOTTI, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT: --------------- RAHEELA, D/O. ABDUL RAZAK, MUTHUPARA HOUSE, PERUR, VANIYAMBALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SMT.M.T.SHEEBA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.17933 OF 2009 R ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JUNE, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. The rival contestants in this Writ Petition are spouses. There are disputes between them. A child has been born to the respondent herein. She asserts that the petitioner is the father of the child. The child was admittedly born during the continuance of the marital tie. The presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act is available in favour of the respondent, she asserts. The petitioner does not accept paternity. The proceedings before the Family Court is initiated by the respondent herein for a declaration of paternity and legitimacy. 2. The petitioner herein filed an application before the Family Court to get the DNA finger printing test to be conducted to resolve the controversies about paternity. The respondent filed a counter statement in which she asserted that she is willing to undergo any test to satisfy the petitioner that the child born to her is that of the petitioner. That petition was not disposed of by the Family Court and stands posted along with the main O.P. for disposal. W.P.(C)No.17933/09 -2- 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent submit that the Family Court must have immediately directed conduct of the DNA finger printing test. The respondent does not want to take resort to any technical plea. She is willing to undergo the DNA test so that doubts, suspicions and misgivings, if any, in the mind of the petitioner can be disabused. The learned counsel for the respondent also prays that the DNA test may be directed to be conducted, so that the parties can come to an amicable settlement. Counsel for the petitioner submits that if the DNA test is answered to confirm that the petitioner is the father of the child born to the respondent, parties shall immediately resume cohabitation without any further dispute. 4. We are in these circumstances satisfied that to cater to the interests of harmony as perceived by both contestants, a DNA test can be permitted to be conducted. We intend to make no observation on the play of the presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, but accept the joint request of the contestants solely for the reason that the conduct of such test will be conducive to matrimonial harmony. W.P.(C)No.17933/09 -3- 5. In the result, I.A.No.1088/09 filed by the petitioner herein shall stand allowed. The learned Judge of the Family Court shall issue appropriate direction to get the DNA test conducted as expeditiously as possible. Needless to say, the petitioner shall meet all the expenses for the conduct of the DNA test. 6. After getting the DNA test, if the parties do not report settlement, the Family Court shall proceed to dispose of the case on merits expeditiously. Grant of the prayer in I.A.No.1088/09 shall not fetter the rights of any of the parties to raise appropriate contentions before the Family Court, when O.P.No.363/09 is taken up for disposal on merits, if such disposal becomes necessary. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. 7. Issue photocopy of this judgment to the counsel for the petitioner forthwith. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn