Karnataka High Court
Smt Ganga vs Smt Shyamala on 20 May, 2014
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N.Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MAY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.21497 OF 2014(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT.GANGA,
W/O. KRISHNA AREGULI
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
RESIDENT OF DEHALLI VILLAGE
P.O: DEHALLI TALUK
VELLAPUR
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 353
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D.PARAMESH., ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT.SHYAMALA
W/O. LAXMINARAYAN BHAT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDENT OF GOLIKOPPA VILLAGE
P.O: ARASAPUR TALUK, SIRSI,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 353
2. SMT.PARWATI
W/O. KRISHNA HOSAMANE
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDENT OF BISGOD VILLAGE
P.O:BISDOG TALUK: YELLAPUR
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 353
3. SMT.SHARADA
W/O. NAGESH GOANKAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
2
RESIDENT OF ADEKPAL IN HUTAKMANE VILLAGE
P.O: BALGIMANE TALUK:YELLAPUR
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 353
4. SMT. SEETHA
W/O. SHIVARAM BOLAGUDDE
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESIDENT OF BOLAGUDDE IN BISGOD VILLLAGE
P.O.:BISGOD TALUK: YELLAPUR
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 353
5. SMT. SRIDEVI
W/O. GOPALKRISHNA HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDENT OF KUMBRI IN NANDOLLI VILLAGE
P.O: NANDOLLI TALUK: YELLAPUR
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 353
6. SMT. SARASWATI
W/O. SUBRAY HEBBAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDENT OF HALEPAL IN DONAGAR VILLAGE
P.O: IDAGUNDI TALUK:YELLAPUR
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 353
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PRTITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN OS.NO.73/2011 ON THE FILE
OF THE SR.CIVIL JUDG, YELLAPUR. QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DT.30.4.14 PASSED ON IA.NO.10 IN
OS.NO.73/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SR.CIVIL JUDGE,
YELLAPUR VIDE ANN-A TO THE WP & CONSEQUENTLY
DISMISS THE SAID IA.NO.10 FILED BY THE R1 AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
By the impugned order, the Trial Court has directed the defendant no.1 whom plaintiff claims to be her mother to give blood sample for the purpose of D.N.A test to know biological relationship between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. In facts of the case, I do not see any justification to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court.
2. Petition dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE msu