.>. liQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BSLASPUi 7717 of 2007 Non-appljcant. »U<JS?Ui AsBiicant, Ramuram Sinha, Aged about 42 years, S.i'o. Shn Benuram Sinha, occupation •- Agriculturist and Carpenter, R;'o. Viiiage Chicha, Thana - i, Tehsii - Gu'ndardehi, Distt. Durg (CG). Versus Sevti Bai Sinha, VV/o. Ramuram Sinha, aged about 38 years, occupatson ~ HQUSS Wife, R/o. viiiage oadar, sa'Kari, i hana - Gundarclehl, Distt. Durs (CG). ottn 'fateMr. S i,j. Pressnt: Shri Vin on this 18 dayofAugust, ated 27-11-2007 miiy Court, Durg, for DNA test By this petition, the pstitioner impugns the os (Annexure P/5) passed by the ist Additional Principal Judg< in Svl.J.C. No. 123/07, whereby an application fiied by the vvas dismissed. 2'i Shri Vlnav Pandev. learned counsel aoDearina for 'the petitioner submits that the petitiorier has divoreed the respondent wife under the traditional system •Gf "Chhod-Chhutti" in oresenca of members ofthe Panchavaf of viiiage Oddar and the chiid Ariun for whom aiong with her she is cSaiming maintenance, is not entitied to anv maintenance amount as chiid Ariun was not born wjthin the wed-iock of the oetitioner and resoondent'wife. Lesrned counsei further submits that w'rthout veri'Fyina the facts asto whether Ariun was a chiid or not, no order could have been passed. The petitioner, according'iy, made an application for DNA test at his ovi/n cost before the court beiov/ and the same was wronaiv rejectea. ./ ^^^ '<*>a 3) !n ths matter of Sharik Ahmad (Advocate) Vs. Sunder Lal', this Court oosen/ea as unaer: "8. The Hon'bie Suprerne Court in the rriattsr of BaRarsl Dass Vs. Tssku Dutte (Mrs) and another .{ (2005) 4 SCC 449}, v.'herein the quesfion or iaw Involved was whsther a direction for deoxyribonucieic acid (DNA) test can be gi'ven in a proceeding for coming to a conciusion under the Succession Act, 1925, held that DNA test cannot be directed as a matter ot rouane and oniy in cseservms cases such a directior, can be given. The paternity of the ch'ild can be proved from other evidences from the fact that b&Sh the persons were havjng physicai reiations, when Kiran Bai conceived and a chiid was born during that period, as a result of thelr relationship. Thjs is for a person vvho is inierested iri denying the factum of physica! reiatjons and b'rth of a child during the period to rebut ihe aiiegation of the mother of the son. Applying the we'l settted principtes of iaw, to ihe facts of th® present case, it appears that the Court beiow has not examined the paiemity on the basis of other evldences before dlrsctlnfl DNA test." 4) Appiying •veli setiSed principS®of Saw to the facts of the presert cas®,no order can be passed as fhe disputed question of facts is invoived and no attempt was made on the part of the Presiding Offlcer to examine the facts as stated by the petitioner and to record a finding after examining the witnesses and reievant 27-11-2007 (Annexure P/5) is guashed fresh deciston. both the parties. Thus, the order dated and remanded fo the court beiow for 5) Havmg regard to the facts sjtuation of the case, the Court below Is directed to record a finding after proper scrutiny with regard to averment of' the petitioner and consia'sr his appiication, in accordance with iaw. S2.\ 0} In view ofthe above, the peiition stands disposed of accortiingly. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 2UUJ<(i)MPM'rjl(UU)