C.R.No.4601 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4601 of 2009 Date of Decision : 20.10.2009 Poonam Rani ...Petitioner Versus Shankar Lal and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate, for respondent No.1. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 22.5.2009, whereby the petitioner alongwith her son were directed to undergo DNA Test from Post Graduate Institute for Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goutam Kundu Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1993 SC 2295 and a judgment of this Court in Kuldeep Singh Vs. Joginder Kaur and another 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 572, to contend that the petitioner cannot be compelled to undergo DNA Test. The judgment in Gautam Kundu's case (supra) was examined by a later Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported as Sharda Vs. Dharmpal, 2003 AIR (SC) 3450, wherein it has been held that direction to submit to the Test does not violate the right of privacy and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was also held that if a person refuses to submit C.R.No.4601 of 2009 2 to such medical examination, a strong case for drawing an adverse inference would be made out. Reference was made to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, which enables a Court to draw an adverse inference, if the party does not produce the relevant evidences in his power and possession. The judgment of this Court in Kuldeep Singh's case (supra) is rendered after considering the judgments in Sharda's and Goutam Kundu's cases (supra). On facts, it was found that, prima facie, case is not made out to direct the wife to undergo DNA Test. In the present case, the learned trial Court has given cogent reasons to direct the present petitioner to undergo DNA Test. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not raise any meaningful argument to dispel the reasoning given by the learned trial Court. In terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharda's case (supra), such a direction to undergo DNA Test could be issued. However, it is for the petitioner to decide whether to undergo DNA Test or permit the learned trial Court to raise an adverse inference by not subjecting herself and her son to DNA Test. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. 20.10.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE