Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original plaintiffs in a partition suit (RCS No.186/2002), challenged the order dated 20/06/2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, J.D. Kaij, Dist. Beed, which rejected their application (Exh.55) seeking a DNA test of respondent No.1. The petitioners claimed that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.7 are children of petitioner No.2 and respondent No.1, born out of a legal wedlock. Respondent No.1 denied the wedlock. The petitioners argued that a DNA test was necessary to prove paternity. The trial court had noted that defendants were absent and failed to argue. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the DNA test would be crucial evidence to determine the paternity and legal wedlock. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to pass appropriate orders for conducting the DNA test of respondent No.1, with the petitioners bearing the costs. The court also directed the trial court to expedite the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - DNA Test - Paternity - Evidence Act, 1872, Section 45 - In a partition suit, the plaintiffs sought a DNA test of the defendant to establish paternity and legal wedlock. The trial court rejected the application. The High Court held that DNA test is a crucial piece of evidence to determine paternity and allowed the application, directing the trial court to pass appropriate orders for conducting the test. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the application for DNA test of respondent No.1 to prove paternity should be allowed in a partition suit.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 20/06/2012, and directed the trial court to pass appropriate orders for conducting the DNA test of respondent No.1. The petitioners shall bear the costs of the DNA test. The trial court is directed to expedite the suit.
Law Points
- DNA test
- paternity
- partition suit
- evidence
- civil procedure
- legal wedlock
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (12) 15
Writ Petition No.7402 of 2012
Mr. H.V. Tungar for petitioners, Mr. P.D. Suryawanshi for respondents
Namdeo Babasaheb Korde and Janabai W/o.Babasaheb Korde
Babasaheb @ Babarao Ramrkishna Korde and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging rejection of application for DNA test in a partition suit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought setting aside of the order dated 20/06/2012 and direction for DNA test of respondent No.1.
Filing Reason
The trial court rejected the application for DNA test, which the petitioners considered necessary to prove paternity and legal wedlock.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Civil Judge, J.D. Kaij) rejected the application Exh.55 on 20/06/2012.
Issues
Whether the application for DNA test of respondent No.1 should be allowed to prove paternity in a partition suit.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that DNA test is necessary to prove paternity and legal wedlock.
Respondent No.1 opposed the application, but his advocate later stated that a reply was filed.
Ratio Decidendi
DNA test is a crucial piece of evidence to determine paternity and legal wedlock, and the trial court should allow such application to ensure justice.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioners are challenging the impugned order dated 20/06/2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, J.D. Kaij, Dist. Beed in RCS No.186/2002.
It thus emerges from the fact situation that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.7 herein are claiming to be the children of petitioner No.2 and respondent No.1.
Respondent No.1 had denied the factum of his wedlock with petitioner No.2.
In this backdrop, the petitioners had moved an application Exh. 55 seeking a DNA test of respondent No.1 to prove his paternity.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed a partition suit (RCS No.186/2002) before the Civil Judge, J.D. Kaij. They filed an application Exh.55 for DNA test, which was rejected on 20/06/2012. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Evidence Act, 1872: Section 45
