MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Divorce on Adultery – DNA Test systematic and Disprove parentage

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

First Appeal No.524 of 1998

Against a Judgment and Decree antiquated 13.07.1998 upheld by 6th Additional District Judge, Gaya in Title Suit(Divorce) Case No.20 of 1990/1 of 1996.

Ashok Kumar ……………….Plaintiff – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Kumari Bachchi Devi @ Bina Roy …………Defendant-Respondent

Appearance :
For a Appellant/s : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dvivedi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate Mr. Parth Gaurav, Advocate Mr. Projesh, Advocate
For a Respondent/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Choudhary, Advocate.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO C.A.V.

JUDGMENT Date: 19-05-2017
1. The plaintiff has filed this First Appeal severe a impugned visualisation and direct antiquated 13.07.1998 upheld by a schooled 6th Additional District Judge, Gaya in Title Suit(Divorce) Case No. 20 of 1990/1 of 1996 whereby a schooled conference probity discharged a plaintiff’s fit for divorce.

2. The plaintiff-appellant filed a aforesaid divorce box underneath Section 13 of a Hindu Marriage Act praying for a direct for divorce conflicting a respondent. The plaintiff claimed a aforesaid service Patna High Court FA No.524 of 1998 dt.19-05-2017 on a contribution inter alia that they were married on 18.05.1981. The respondent is of incorrigible impression and has been vital in adultery given a matrimony and it continued after matrimony also. She had passionate retort with conflicting persons other than a applicant. When a applicant learnt about a impression he had no passionate retort with a conflicting celebration given 1982. The applicant was not holding any stairs conflicting a conflicting celebration anticipating that she would refrain in destiny from committing a offences. However, she continued with a incorrigible act and eventually she gave birth to a masculine child on 13.04.1990. The birth of this masculine child is decisive explanation of a fact that a conflicting party- mother is indulged in passionate co-habitation with conflicting persons. The applicant does not know a names of those persons with whom a mother is indulged in passionate co-habitation.

3. After notice, a respondent-wife seemed and filed contesting created matter denying all a allegations of a husband. In a created statement, she described a durations when she was vital with a applicant-appellant and clearly staid that given 1987 to 1989 she was staying with a appellant and had co-habited with him and became pregnant. As a outcome of this, a masculine child was innate to a wife- respondent who is a son of a applicant-appellant.

4. The serve box is that there was some differences between both a families given of direct of Rs.20,000/- by a father for Patna High Court FA No.524 of 1998 dt.19-05-2017 purchasing “Hero Honda” motorcycle that was refused by father, therefore, this fake box has been filed. It is not compulsory to understanding with a fact pleading of a conflicting party. Only those contribution that are compulsory are being staid above.

5. On a basement of a aforesaid pleadings of a parties, a schooled conference probity framed a following issues:
I. Is a fit maintainable as it has been framed and filed?
II. Has a applicant got any means of movement for a suit?
III. Is a O.P. vital in adultery given marriage?
IV. Has a applicant no passionate retort with a O.P. given 1982?
V. Is a child given birth to by a O.P. outcome of adultery or is innate out of a holy nuptials with a applicant?
VI. Has a applicant ever demanded Rs.20,000/-(twenty thousand) for squeeze of Hero Honda Motorcycle from a father of a O.P.?
VII. Is a applicant entitled to a direct of divorce?

6. After conference a parties and deliberation a evidences, a schooled conference probity accessible anticipating that a applicant unsuccessful to infer adultery and serve hold that a masculine child innate to a wife-respondent is of a husband. Accordingly, discharged a divorce suit.

7. The schooled comparison counsel, Mr. Dvivedi lifted dual drift only. According to a schooled comparison counsel, D.N.A. exam was conducted by conjectural laboratory during Hyderabad and news was submitted to a outcome that masculine child is not a son of a applicant-appellant though a schooled conference probity deserted a same and himself came to a Patna High Court FA No.524 of 1998 dt.19-05-2017 end that a news is wrong that a schooled probity next could not have done. The schooled comparison warn serve submitted that a evidences constructed by a mother are not arguable and moreover, whatever hypothesis was accessible underneath Section 4 and 112 of a Evidence Act has been rebutted by a D.N.A. news though a schooled probity next deserted a news on illogical drift for a purpose of dismissing a divorce box and a reason reserved for dispatch D.N.A. exam can't be supposed by probity of law.

READ  243Rd Report On Section 498A IPC

8. Secondly, a schooled comparison counsel, Mr. Dvivedi submitted that a parties are vital alone given some-more than about 27 years, that clearly proves that a matrimony between them has irretrievably damaged and, therefore, on this belligerent also, a appellant is entitled to a extend of a direct for divorce. The schooled warn for a appellants relied on several decisions on both a points. The same shall be deliberate subsequently.

9. On a other hand, a schooled counsel, Mr. Choudhary for a respondent submitted that in perspective of Section 4 and 112 of a Evidence Act, a hypothesis of descent is decisive proof, therefore, this decisive explanation can't be dislodged by D.N.A. report. There might be mistakes in a report, therefore, it is not protected to rest on a D.N.A. report. The schooled conference court, therefore, has given sufficient reason for not relying on a D.N.A. news and in perspective of Section 112 of Patna High Court FA No.524 of 1998 dt.19-05-2017 a Evidence Act hold that conclusively it is current that masculine child is son of a appellant. Since a D.N.A. news has got a critical effect a same should be so many so authentic that 100% faith can be placed on it though a author of a news in his justification staid that there is probability of blunder upto 0.02% and this is sufficient to drop a D.N.A. news and if D.N.A. news is deserted afterwards there is no explanation of a fact of adultery given according to a husband, a mother is indulged in earthy attribute with others given a matrimony is took place in 1981. However, a father did not take any step upto a year 1990 when a son was innate that speaks that this is a baked adult story. The schooled warn for a respondent relied on a preference relating to D.N.A. test. we shall cruise these decisions thereafter.

10. So distant irretrievably relapse of a matrimony is concerned, a schooled warn submitted that no doubt a parties are staying alone from any other for some-more than 27 years and now it will not be probable to reside together though if divorce is postulated on this ground, afterwards permanent subsistence be supposing to a wife.

11. On a basement of a arguments modernized by a schooled warn for a parties, a following points arises for care in this First Appeal:
Patna High Court FA No.524 of 1998 dt.19-05-2017 I. Whether a father applicant-appellant has been means to infer a belligerent of adultery and either a son innate in a year 1990 is a son of a appellant or not?
II. Whether on a belligerent of irretrievably relapse of marriage, a husband-appellant is entitled for a extend of direct of divorce?
Point No.I

12. The applicant-appellant besides other evidences examined a scientist A.W.2, Dr. G.V. Rao of Centre for D.N.A. Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, C.C.M.D. Campus, Uppal Road, Hyderabad 500007. On a other hand, a O.P. has examined 5 witnesses only. The news of a Scientist A.W.2 has been noted as Exhibit 2 with objection. It might be mentioned here that a father and mother both voiced their eagerness to bear a paternity exam i.e. D.N.A. test. The consultant constructed a report, Ext. 2 and a enclosing along with Ext. 2 has been noted as Ext. 3 and this report, clearly proves that Ashok Kumar, a appellant is not a biological father of a son innate to respondent herein namely, Master Rahul Kumar.

13. The schooled comparison warn relied on a preference of a Supreme Court, 2014(2) Supreme Court Cases 576(Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik and another) and submitted that a D.N.A. exam news is scientifically accurate though a schooled conference probity Patna High Court FA No.524 of 1998 dt.19-05-2017 in a benefaction box scrutinized a news and afterwards on groundless ground, deserted a report.

14. From examination of this decision, it appears that a Supreme Court in that box also was deliberation a news of D.N.A. exam and during divide 13 has hold relying on a preference of Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram, 2001(5) Supreme Court Cases 311 that it has been famous by a Supreme Court in Kamti Devi (supra) that outcome of a D.N.A. exam is scientifically accurate. In a benefaction case, it will not be out of place to discuss here that it is not a box of any celebration that a D.N.A. test, Ext. 2 is not a genuine report. No dispute to a news has been filed by a mother nor a wife-respondent ever prayed for another D.N.A. exam report. In other words, a genuineness of a news is not challenged.

READ  Whether court should rely on electronic evidence produced without certificate as per S.65B of Evidence Act?

15. In a same decision, a Hon’ble Supreme Court during divide 16 and 17 hold as follows:

“16. As staid earlier, a DNA exam is an accurate exam and on that basement it is transparent that a appellant is not a biological father of a girl-child. However, during a same time, a condition fashion for bid of Section 112 of a Evidence Act has been determined and no anticipating with courtesy to a defence of a father that he had no entrance to his mother during a time when a child could have been begotten has been recorded.
Admittedly, a child has been innate during a continuation of a current marriage. Therefore, a supplies of Section 112 of a Evidence Act conclusively infer that Respondent No. 2 is a daughter of a appellant. At a same time, a DNA exam reports, formed on systematic analysis, in no capricious terms advise that a appellant is not a biological Patna High Court FA No.524 of 1998 dt.19-05-2017 father. In such circumstance, that would give proceed to a other is a formidable doubt acted before us.
17. We might remember that Section 112 of a Evidence Act was enacted during a time when a complicated systematic enrichment and DNA exam were not even in speculation of a Legislature. The outcome of DNA exam is pronounced to be scientifically accurate. Although Section 112 raises a hypothesis of decisive explanation on compensation of a conditions enumerated therein though a same is rebuttable. The hypothesis might means legitimate means of nearing during an certain authorised conclusion. While a law or fact is known, in a opinion, there is no need or room for any presumption. Where there is justification to a contrary, a hypothesis is rebuttable and contingency produce to proof. Interest of probity is best served by ascertaining a law and a probity should be furnished with a best accessible scholarship and might not be left to bank on presumptions, unless scholarship has no answer to a contribution in issue. In a opinion, when there is a dispute between a decisive explanation envisaged underneath law and a explanation formed on systematic enrichment supposed by a universe village to be correct, a latter contingency overcome over a former.

16. It appears that in a aforesaid decision, a D.N.A. news was perceived from Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Nagpur and, therefore, an focus was filed by a mother for a re-test and afterwards a High Court destined for D.N.A. exam to be conducted during a Central Forensic Laboratory, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India during Hyderabad. In a benefaction box also, a news has been perceived from a pronounced laboratory during Hyderabd and this laboratory is deliberate to be a many allege laboratory in a matter.
Patna High Court FA No.524 of 1998 dt.19-05-2017

17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a box of Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy, 2015(1) Supreme Court Cases 365 has hold during divide 17 as follows:

“17. The doubt that has to be answered in this case, is in honour of a purported infidelity of a appellant- wife. The respondent-husband has finished transparent and sure assertions in a petition filed by him underneath Section 13 of a Hindu Marriage Act, alleging infidelity. He has left to a border of fixing a person, who was a father of a masculine child innate to a appellant-wife. It is in a routine of substantiating his claim of infidelity that a respondent-husband had finished an focus before a Family Court for conducting a DNA exam that would settle either or not, he had fathered a masculine child innate to a appellant-wife. The respondent feels that it is usually probable for him to justify a allegations leveled by him (of a appellant wife’s infidelity) by a DNA test. We determine with him. In a view, though for a DNA test, it would be unfit for a respondent- father to settle and endorse a assertions finished in a pleadings. We are therefore confident that a instruction released by a High Court, as has been extracted hereinabove, was entirely justified. DNA contrast is a many legitimate and scientifically ideal means, that a father could use, to settle his avowal of infidelity. This should concurrently be taken as a many authentic, legitimate and scold means also with a wife, for her to plead a assertions finished by a respondent-husband, and to settle that she had not been unfaithful, unfaithful or disloyal. If a appellant- mother is right, she shall be current to be so.”

18. On a contrary, a schooled counsel, Mr. Choudhary for a respondent relied on a preference of Calcutta High Court upheld in First Appeal No.13 of 2011 antiquated 20.08.2013 that deals with about a condonation of check on a belligerent of adultery. It has been hold that a Patna High Court FA No.524 of 1998 dt.19-05-2017 enlarged overpower would advise condonation of a purported offence. This preference is not on a indicate of D.N.A. report.

READ  498ATransfer Petition Dismissed

19. The other preference is a preference of a Supreme Court AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2089. This preference also does not understanding with a D.N.A. test.

20. From examination of a conference probity judgment, it appears that a conference probity gave many importance on a justification of a mother in perspective of a sustenance as contained in Section 112 of a Evidence Act and has not deliberate during all a staid beliefs of law laid down by a Supreme Court. Moreover, a reason reserved by a conference probity for not relying on a D.N.A. exam news from conjectural Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad is not excusable quite when a Hon’ble Supreme Court repeatedly, as quoted above, hold that this news is scientifically accurate and correct. Therefore, when a accurate and scold justification i.e. systematic justification is available, a probity is not compulsory to examine serve a correctness or differently of a news itself that is always hold to be accurate even by a Supreme Court. The systematic news per papers of a chairman can be examined by a probity though so distant D.N.A. exam is concerned, scholarship is now grown and in that matter, a probity can't have a conflicting opinion. The systematic news of D.N.A. news from a conjectural laboratory is to be Patna High Court FA No.524 of 1998 dt.19-05-2017 supposed as scold in perspective of a preference of a Supreme Court referred to above.

21. The leaned conference probity poorly found error in a news and tested a same in terms of Section 4 and 112 of a Evidence Act that he could not have done. Thus, we find that a D.N.A. exam i.e. paternity exam is genuine, current and excusable news and we also find that a son innate to a wife-respondent is not a son of a appellant.

22. So distant condonation is concerned, it is privately pleaded by a father that he was meditative that a mother respondent might come to him withdrawal unfaithful life. No doubt, he condoned a unfaithful life of a mother though there is a limit. When he found that now a child has been innate he afterwards filed a benefaction divorce case. Now therefore, it can't be pronounced that given he progressing condoned, a mother has got event to live a same life in future. Here, a father has been means to infer conclusively by systematic paternity exam that a child is not his son. Thus, a anticipating of a conference probity is hereby topsy-turvy and this indicate no. we is answered in foster of a appellant and conflicting a wife-respondent.
Point No.II

23. So distant this indicate is concerned, both a parties certified that they are vital alone given 27 years and it is not probable for them to live together. In such circumstances, a probity can't force them to live Patna High Court FA No.524 of 1998 dt.19-05-2017 together. Moreover, a belligerent on that a divorce fit was filed by a father has been proved. Now therefore, on this belligerent also, a appellant is entitled for a extend of direct of divorce.

24. So distant permanent subsistence is concerned, no justification is accessible before this court, therefore, if law permits, a mother might proceed suitable forum for permanent subsistence as supposing underneath Section 25 of a Hindu Marriage Act.

25. In a result, this First Appeal is allowed. The impugned visualisation and direct upheld by a conference probity is set aside and a plaintiff’s fit for divorce is intended and a direct of divorce is granted. The parties shall bear their possess cost.

(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Saurabh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 21.04.2017
Uploading Date 19.05.2017
Transmission 19.05.2017
Date

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Important SC/HC Judgements on 498A IPC
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2019 MyNation KnowledgeBase
eXTReMe Tracker
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, though No Lawyer will give we Advice like We do

Please review Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You determine afterwards Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We hoop Women Centric inequitable laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

READ  Whether court should rely on electronic evidence produced without certificate as per S.65B of Evidence Act?
Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh