wp4098.11 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ .: WRIT PETITION NO.4098 OF 2011 BAJIRAO KASHINATH MANDLIK VERSUS ANILKUMAR BAJIRAO MANDLIK AND ANR ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Shinde S.K. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. Dated: November 29, 2011 ... Heard. 2 This petition has been filed aggrieved by the order passed by the C.J.J.D., Akole on 11.11.2010 thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner for DNA test of the plaintiffs and also defendants. The said application has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the plaintiff has refused to undergo the test and the Court cannot compel any person to undergo the test as it will break up family relations. 3 The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that that notice was given in the year, 1971 to the respondent - wife stating wp4098.11 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ .: therein that the child in her womb is not from the petitioner since the petitioner stayed at Aklooj and wife stayed at Akole at the relevant time. The Counsel invited my attention to the averments in the written statement and submitted that even in written statement, the petitioner herein has taken a stand that the plaintiff No.1 is not begotten from him. Therefore, according to him, the petitioner's application for sending the plaintiffs and also petitioner - defendant for DNA test should not have been rejected. 4 Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am not inclined to accept the case of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 and the petitioner got married in 1970 and till the date, the marriage is in subsistence. Therefore, the presumption would be that the respondent No.1 is begotten from the petitioner. Unless the petitioner convincingly proves by bringing on record convincing evidence that the respondent No.1 is not begotten from the petitioner and during the said wp4098.11 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ .: period, the petitioner and respondent No.2 were not staying together. Therefore, in absence of any material placed on record and in view of the fact that marriage ties between the petitioner and respondent No.2 are in subsistence, in my considered opinion, the impugned order cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse. The view taken by the Court below is in consonance with the material brought on record. The petitioner has not placed anything on record except copy of the notice issued in the year, 1971 and the contents of the written statement that the respondent No.2 and the petitioner were not staying together since the date of marriage. Such assertion of the petitioner in absence of any other evidence on record, has been rightly not considered by the trial Court. Therefore, the impugned order needs no interference. Writ Petition stands rejected. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) PLK/*