Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Darshna Kumari vs Mukerian Hydel Project ,Division ... on 10 December, 2019

Author: Deepak Sibal

Bench: Deepak Sibal

CR-14296-2018                                        1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                                             CR-14296-2018
                                                 Date of decision: 10.12.2019

Darshna Kumari
                                                                 .....Petitioner
                                    versus

Mukerian Hydel Project Division Punjab State Power Corporation
Limited Talwara and another
                                               ......Respondents

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal


Present:     Mr.Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner

Deepak Sibal, J. (Oral)

The present petition is directed against the order dated 05.10.2018 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mukerian (for short, the Trial Court), dismissing an application filed by the petitioner through which she had sought conducting of DNA test of respondent no.2 Shakuntla Devi and Rajni Bala Parmar.

The facts in brief which are required to be noticed for adjudicating upon the present petition are that respondent no.1 filed a suit through which it sought a declaration as to whether the petitioner or respondent no.2, who were the defendants in the suit were entitled to the pensionary benefits of late Ram Chand as both of them, as widow of late Ram Chand, had applied to respondent no.1 claiming therein his pensionary/retiral benefits.

On being put to notice, the petitioner as well as respondent no.2 appeared before the Trial Court and both of them staked claim to the retiral/ pensionary benefits of Ram Chand. The Trial Court framed issues on which respondent no.1 led its evidence. Thereafter, during the course of leading 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2019 18:46:06 ::: CR-14296-2018 2 her evidence, amongst other things, respondent no.2 submitted before the Trial Court that it was she who was married to Ram Chand and out of their relationship one daughter namely Rajni Bala Parmar was also born.

After respondent no.2 had stated as above, an application was filed by the petitioner seeking therein DNA test to be conducted of both respondent no.2 and Rajni Bala Parmar to find out whether respondent no.2 was the biological mother of Rajni Bala Parmar. The Trial Court dismissed the petitioner's application on the ground that no useful purpose would be served by conducting of the test as prayed for by the petitioner. Such order of the Trial Court is under challenge in the present proceedings.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard. Both the petitioner and respondent no.2 claim to be widows of late Ram Chand and in that capacity seek from respondent no.1 his pensionary/ retiral benefits. In these circumstances respondent no.1 has filed a suit before the Trial Court seeking a declaration to the effect as to whether the petitioner or respondent no.2 was Ram Chand's widow. Such issue has been framed by the Trial Court and is being deliberated upon.

During the course of leading her evidence, respondent no.2 has stated before the Trial Court that it is she who is Ram Chand's widow and that out of their relationship one daughter namely Rajni Bala Parmar was also born.

After respondent no.2's above statement, the petitioner filed an application before the Trial Court seeking therein DNA test to be conducted to find out whether respondent no.2 was Rajni Bala Parmar's biological mother. Through the impugned order the Trial Court has dismissed such application.

2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2019 18:46:07 ::: CR-14296-2018 3 No useful purpose would be served if a DNA test is conducted to find out whether respondent no.2 is or not the biological mother of Rajni Bala Parmar as the only issue to be adjudicated upon by the Trial Court is as to which of the defendants before it was Ram Chand's wife. It is irrelevant if respondent no.2-Shakuntla Devi was Rajni Bala Parmar's mother or not.

Conduct of a DNA test is not be taken lightly as it can have grave consequences. It is not be ordered at the asking.

In view of the above facts, the Trial Court is found to have rightly dismissed the petitioner's application.

Dismissed.




10.12.2019                                               (Deepak Sibal)
gk                                                           Judge

Whether speaking/ reasoned:             Yes/No
Whether Reportable:                     Yes/No




                                      3 of 3
                   ::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2019 18:46:07 :::