THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Revision Petition No. 5106 of 2008 Order: This CRP is directed against the orders dated 15.10.2008 passed in I.A. No.144 of 2008 in OP No.171 of 2006 by the Family Court, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner herein is the third party to the OP proceedings before the Lower Court. The first respondent herein is the husband of the second respondent herein. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The marriage of the first respondent herein was solemnized with the third respondent on 16.04.1974. The first respondent claimed that he had taken customary divorce from the third respondent on 09.08.1976 before the caste elders and got the divorce deed registered in the office of the Registrar, Kakinada. The third respondent filed OP No.171 of 2006 seeking declaration that the alleged divorce deed dated 09.08.1976 is not valid and binding and that her marriage is still subsisting with the first respondent. During the pendency of the proceedings, the third respondent herein was examined as PW.1. The petitioner herein who is the daughter of the third respondent was examined as PW.2 and in her evidence she claimed that she is the daughter of the first and third respondents herein. Disputing the said fact, the first respondent filed I.A. No.144 of 2008 in OP No.171 of 2006 to send the petitioner herein for DNA test to verify whether her claim is correct or not. The lower Court, by impugned orders, allowed the said application. The same is under challenge in this revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised two points. Her first submission is that the petitioner is not a party to OP No.171 of 2006 and since she is not a party to the said proceedings, no order can be passed against her. Her second submission is that by compulsion no person can be directed to undergo DNA test. In support of her contention, she has relied on the decisions reported in Didde Sundaramani v. D. Venkata Subbarao[1], Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal[2], Banarsi Dass v. Teeku Dutta[3], Migada Varalakshmi v. Migada Srinivas[4], Syed Mohd. Ghouse v. Noorunnisa Beghum[5], Kamarathi Sreemurthy v. Kamarathi Rajeswari[6] and Sajitha v. State of Kerala[7]. Learned counsel for the first respondent has supported the impugned order. The points that arise for consideration are whether the impugned order is sustainable when the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings in OP No.171 of 2006 and whether a person can be compelled to undergo DNA test. As far as the first point is concerned, I am convinced that when the petitioner is not a party to the OP proceedings, no order can be passed against her. Since on this ground alone the revision can be allowed, I am of the view that there is no need to decide the second point in this revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, in the circumstances, no order as to costs. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 07.04.2011 Nsr [1] LS 2 (2005) 418 [2] AIR (SC) (1993) 2295 [3] 2005(3) Supreme 569 [4] LS 2 (2006) 332 [5] 2001(1) ALT (Crl) 322 [6] ALT (Crl) 1 (2007) 134 [7] 2003(1) Crimes 460