IN THE HIGH COURT OELjCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (227) No.-^®G^t /2010 PETITIONER: (non-applicant) ¥ \^^/^t •^•"" -. rf^^""" "s^s-^ ^s^- Rajesh Kumar Soni S/o Nohar Lal Soni Aged about 34 years Resident of Village- Pamgarh, main road "Shri Jewelers"Pamgarh Tahsil & Police station - Pamgarh, District -janjgir Champa ( C. G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 1. (Applicants) Smt. Madhu SarafW/o Rajesh Kumar Soni Aged About 32 years Kumari Anjali D/o Rajesh Kumar Soni Aged about 5-month (Minor) natural guardian mother Smt. Madhu Saraf Above both the respondent are present address Basant Saraf near the "Pradhan Sarvice Sound" Juna Bilaspur Police Station- City Kotwali District- Bilaspur (C.G.) WRITPETITION UNDERACRTICLE227 OF THE CONSTFFUTION OF INDIA mGHC@I3RllOKMlI^1FI^(3AR@Al'BH.ASPl]R S.B: Hun'bl^Shri Pi'aslianit^KumarMMhra WritPefitum(22'7)3No.'7067/2010 PETITIONER : Raiesh Kumar S^ 'Versus:''' ': • '' • : '• ^ '' RESPONDENTS : Sint. Madhu Sarafand aiuyther .ADpearance; / ; :.,••• :-.''.':^;,'' :''':. ::.':-':' ^ . •': • ShriRla¥iMahesKwari,ccmnsetfbrtllepetiticm^ WRaPEai'HONMNBERAI^IG^ •:C©N8TITimO :(^I®?I^':-;'l ORALOEBER ,^06.12.2%©) ; Heard. ' (2): Leamed:Famil^,(20gi't.;l]Ss|ffii|stS^|letji;ioner's.appliGatton'for :: conducting pNA te^oftlre nroved on ^e submissicwthatlfagffl takeBt place? 6n 9a Mareh, 2Q08 and the^ w^ witil tlle petrfioner only for 15 days an3 tliereaftershe gave butb to a girl eluld pn 9ffiJanuary2Q09.'Itwasthustned^to of the child ^have taken place durihg tfae period wlien there was np physicalrelatto&betweehtheparties, .(3)'';: ^ Ia.fhe.matter';of:GQutam.;Ku^ ^ai)A.'anofliCT,,AIRl^?SGl:2295^th&;:H(^ -.heldthus in^para 26:: '1;:^.:,:{;';--.. 3;':,' •:.,.;,,.:1 26.^rcnn^he!:al3fjyeiS^iStssic»Kit^ • :'::^l'^';::;.'fi^jpe((^;fi;K^%^ y'matter^cour^^S^^tt^ ^•^ :'F- ' •ii l ^ C^A- -2 (4) f2) wherever applications dre madefor such prayers morderto hcive raving inqwry, thepfiyerfor bloodtest eannotbe entertamed (3} There must be a sfrong primafacie case m that the hu/sbandmust esUiblish non-access m order to dispel the presuntption ansing wvier section 112 of the EvidenceAct. (4} The Court nmst carefiilfy exandne as to what •would be ihe consequence cvf ordermg the blpqd test; •whether it will have the effeet of bramSng a child as a bastdrdandthe motherds cmwichastewamwt. P} Np one can be compelled to give sample of blood ybranafysis: Applyiag the said ratio iffi1|Ue ^sent ease; it is to be seen that there is n(Aing pri reGG^^maiiing a pnma^f^ in feyour of husband to fistablish ^on-access in order to dispel^^te presumption arising under section 112 ofthe Evidence Act. (5) The learned Family Court has not Gommitted any error of law by rejectmg the application for condueting DNA test of the respondentNo.l.Avife. (6) No case for interference in exercise ofpower under Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia is made out. (7) Consequently, the instant wnt petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd//- PrashantKumarMishra Judge