Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 20 April, 2026

[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 20 April, 2026

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff/wife (hereinafter to be referred as the appellant) against impugned order dated 24.05.2023 vide which the plaint of the appellant filed under Section 151 CPC" seeking declaration of paternity of twin children alleged to be born to Geeta Bhatt/respondent Bhatt/respondent No.2 on 04.11.2013 with respect to Dr. V.P. Sharma alias Vishwa Priya Sharma respondent No.1 who in year 2018 suddenly claims himself to be the genetic father of twin children in two maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C."

Cr.P.C.", has been rejected JYOTI 2026.04.20 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4731 of 2023 (O&M) - 2- by allowing applications filed by the respondents under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable.

2. The case pleaded by the appellant before learned Family Court is that her marriage with respondent respondent No.1 was solemnized in the year 1979 and during the subsistence of their marriage, they were blessed with one son, born in November 1981 who is a specially abled child and is suffering from 'moderate mental retardation'. This disability is permanent as per certificate dated 15.01.2009 (Annexure Annexure P P-12). Respondent No.1 underwent vasectomy in the year 1989. During the subsistence of their marriage, they they wanted another child and re respondent spondent No.1 went through 'PM-vasectomy' vasectomy' in the year 1996 and his case was considered as 'secondary secondary sterility' vide certificate dated 15.02.1996 (Annexure P-11)

11) issued by Lok Nayak Jai Parkash Narayan Hospital, New Delhi Delhi..

Respondent pondent No.1 could not father any other child from the appellant.

the marriage was dissolved on 3rd May, 2003 After 23 years of marriage, their vide decree Annexure P-14 P by way of mutual consent under Section 13-B B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

1955 Thereafter, respondent No.1 solemnized his second d marriage with respondent No.2 in the year 2004 2004. After 9 years of his second marriage, when respondent No.1 was 64 years of age in the year 2018, he claimed paternity of twin children (one male and one female) who are stated stated to be born to respondent No.2 in the year 2013 through IVF procedure. The said paternity qua twin children is claimed by respondent No.1 in application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance for herself and her minor son. Respondent No.1 cannot fa father ther any child JYOTI 2026.04.20 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4731 of 2023 (O&M) - 3- because he had underwent 'vasectomy' in the year 1989. Respondent No.2 had undergone surgery for ovarian tumors in the year 2000. So it is yet to be determined whether her eggs could be retrieved from her ovary for use in IVF procedure. Under these circumstances, to determine the possibility that only the uterus of respondent No.2 and not her eggs were used for development of embryos formed in the laboratory of gynecologist is to be confirmed by the doctor. Respondent espondent No.1 cannot claim himself to be father of twin children stated to have been born to respondent No.2 in the year 2013. In the date of birth certificate Annexure P-7/ P-18 18 dated 20.11.2013 of female child, her date of birth is recorded as 04.11.2013, her mother's name as Geet Geeta Bhatt i.e. respondent No.2 but father's name is not entered.. The appellant took information under Right to Information Act from Sub Registrar, Birth and Death, South New Delhi, Municipal Corporation and she was informed vide Annexure P-4 4 that the correction correct in date of birth certificate of twin children of respondent No.1 was done on 17.01.2017 (of boy) and 15.03.2017 (of girl) and thereafter, Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi, South Delhi Municipal Corporation issued certificate dated 24.11.2018 (Annexure Annexure P-9) of the male child wherein for the first time time, name of respondent No.1 as father and respondent No.2 as mother are mentioned. Before 17.01.2017 7.01.2017 and 15.03.2017 and at the most till 24.11.2018, the name of respondent No.1 was nowhere nowhere mentioned as father of the twin children of respondent No.2. However, in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. respondent No.1 claimed himself to be father of twin JYOTI 2026.04.20 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4731 of 2023 (O&M) - 4- children. This stand was taken by respondent No.1 only to reduce the maintenance which could have been awarded to the appellant and her son. The sole testimony of respondent No.1 No.1 claiming to be father of children without any corroboration from the testimony of aalleged lleged mother i.e. respondent No.2 No or from that of Gynecologist cannot be rread ead in evidence.

For this purpose, DNA test of twin children and respondents No.1 & 22, is necessary.

3. Upon notice of the suit, both the respondents appeared before the learned Family Court and moved separate applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC vide which the maintainability of petition/suit petition/suit/plaint was challenged on the ground of limitation and also on the ground that the same affects the rights of privacy and confidentiality of the respondents. The learned trial Court after taking reply, reply allowed both the applications and dismissed missed the suit vide impugned order dated 24.05.2023 24.05.2023, primarily holding that under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act 1984, the legitimacy of children can be challenged only by the spouse(s) spouse inter se and not by third party.

ty.

The plaintiff is third party and cannot be allowed to challenge the legitimacy of children.

children Learned earned trial Court also rejected the contention of the appellant that she had not remarried and husband is enjoying his marriage by holding that the "same cannot cannot be ground to file a case against him or to call his wife by bad name (noun withheld) and giving such names to the second wife of respondent No.1 No.1, showed perturbed mental state of the plaintiff".

4. We have ve heard the rival submissions made by both the pparties. JYOTI 2026.04.20 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-4731 of 2023 (O&M) - 5-

5. Appellant submitted that her son from her marital relation with respondent No.1 is a child with special ability and that sshe he and her son filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Cr.P.C wherein the husband in order to reduce the amount of maintenance to be awarded to the son son, claimed that he is also father of twin children from his second wife whereas su such a claim as made by respondent No.1, No.1 cannot be medically possible because he underwent vasectomy vasectomy in the year 1989 i.e. during the subsistence of her marriage with him. It has been submitted that iin n the original date of birth certificates of twin children of respondent No.2, the name of father was not stated and the name was entered only in the year 2017, as per the information she got under RTI. The appellant submitted that since respondent nt No.1 cannot father any child, being a case of 'secondary ary infertility'' as per certificate Annexure P-11 P 11, therefore, it was imperative that the DNA of children of respondent No.2 be conducted with DNA of respondent No.1 to determine whether whether respondent No.1 is father of children of respondent No.2. It has further been submitted that aappellant is not stranger to the matrimonial ties of respondents and since the he maintenance intenance right of her son is affected due to the claim of respondents that respondent No.1 is father of twin children of respondent No.2 No.2,, her prayer deserved to be accepted.

accepted In support of her contention, she relied upon Kesh hav Sood vs. Kirti Pradeep Sood, Civil Appeal No.5841 of 2023 deep Sood arising out of SLP (Civil) No.35740 of 2017 decided on 12.09.2023, Laila and Anr.

A Vs. Muhammedali, 2009 (4) RCR (Civil) 918, Dr. Anr., 1999 Tokugha Yepthomi vs. Appolo Hospital Enterprises Ltd. and Anr. JYOTI 2026.04.20 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

                                       FAO-4731 of 2023 (O&M)                  - 6-


                     AIR (Supreme Court) 495,
                                         495 Kanchan Bedi and A
                                                              Anr.
                                                               nr. Vs. Gurpreet Singh

Bedi, 2003 AIR Delhi 446, Heera Singh Vs. State of U.P and Ors.

rs.

2005(4) RCR (Crl.) 559.

6. Opposing the appeal, the learned learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned trial Court has correctly rejected the plaint as appellant is stranger to the matrimonial ties of respondents and children. She has no right to challenge the paternity of children of respondents. He prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

7. We have considered rival submissions and have also gone through the documents documents/orders relied upon by the appellant and respondents. Order rder dated 27.08.2012 rendered by Family Court, Saket, New Delhi, reveals that Mannu Khanna being a mentally challenged child of respondent spondent No.1, filed application through appellant under Section 125 Cr.P.C seeking maintenance. This order further reveals that interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month th was awarded to the applicant applicant-Mannu Mannu Khanna. During proceedings before, Hon'ble Apex Court respondent No.1, voluntarily agreed agree to enhance interim maintenance from an amount of Rs.5,000/-

Rs.5,000/ to an amount of Rs.7,500/ 500/- per month which was being regularly paid by respondent No.1. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month was awarded to applicant-Mannu applicant Mannu Khanna. This order also refer filing of application under Sections Section 127 and 340 of Cr.P.C and it is recorded in the concluding part of order dated 27.08.2012 that " so farr as application under Section 127 Cr.P.C are concerned, the application u/ u/ss JYOTI 2026.04.20 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4731 of 2023 (O&M) - 7- 127 Cr.P.C. moved by the respondent was dismissed by the concerned LD. MM vide order dated 14.01.2010 with liberty to file fresh application which he never filed. So far as the application application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the respondent did not comply the court directions given vide order dated 30.05.2007 nor did he lead any evidence in support thereto. Accordingly, his application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. filed against the respondent is also dismissed".

8. Order dated 24.05.2018 rendered in Criminal Revision (F) No.69 of 2015 with Criminal Revision (F) No.70 of 2015 by this Court Court, reveals that both Mannu Khanna and respondent No.1 filed criminal revisions before the Delhi High Court against order dated 27.08.2012. The criminal revisions were transferred to this Court by Hon'ble Apex Court. Execution petition pending before the Saket Court was also transferred to Family Court at Chandigarh. This Court dismissed the criminal criminal revision filed by Mannu Khanna and allowed the criminal revision filed by respondent No.1 and maintenance was reduced reduce from an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to an amount of Rs.7500/-per month. The maintenance was reduced taking into consideration that that taxable income of respondent No.1 and that there was one settlement in the year 2003 between respondent No.1 and appellant.

9. Mannu Khanna through his mother (appellant) challenged order dated 24.05.2018 of this Court before Hon'ble Apex Court and vide de order dated 18.11.2019 .2019 rendered in SLPs (Crl.) No.3458 No.3458-3459/2019, 3459/2019, the maintenance in favour of Mannu Khanna was enhanced from Rs.7 Rs.7,500/- per month to Rs.15,000/ per month, considering the fact that the parents of Mannu Rs.15,000/-

JYOTI 2026.04.20 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-4731 of 2023 (O&M) - 8- Khanna are doctors, their status in society is almost same, two wo children are with the mother/appellant out of which one is differently abled child.

10. The appellant has not placed on record the application filed by respondent No.1 under Section 127 Cr.P.C.

Cr.P.C. She has attached Annexure P- 22 with CM No.5111-CII No.5111 CII of 2024 stating it as copy of application filed by defendant under Section 127 Cr.P.C. but it is not the copy of application rather, it is interim order dated 17.04.2014 in execution No. 81 of 2012 titled Mannu Khanna vs. vs V.P. Sharma stating that an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. had been moved.

moved The he same was taken on record and the matter was ordered to be put up with connected matter already fixed for 05.06.2014.

05.06.2014. There is no document worth the name to show as to on what ground respondent No.1 moved application under Section 127 Cr.P.C for reduction of maintenance amount of his son Mannu Khanna.

11. Even if, it is assumed that such a plea was taken by respondent No.1 in application under Section 127 Cr.P.C., the said application has since been dismissed vide order dated 27.08.2012.

27.08.2012 TThe he filing of the said application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. did not have any adverse affect on the maintenance ance rights of son of appellant and as such such, the appellant cannot nnot be said to be aggrieved in any manner by filing of such an application or by any averments made therein.

12. Now the next question arises whether the first former wife of respondent No.1 can question legitimacy of children of her former husband from hhis is legally wedded second wife.

JYOTI 2026.04.20 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

FAO-4731 of 2023 (O&M) - 9-

13. In Dr. Tokugha Yepthomi (supra) the appellant's marriage was called off on the ground that his blood test was found to be HIV(+). Appellant approached National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for damages against the respondent-hospital respondent hospital on the ground that information which was required required to be kept secret under medical ethics ethics, was disclosed illegally. The commission dismissed the petition. The Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal by referring Sections 269 and 270 of IPC and held that the above statutory provisions imposed a duty uupon pon the appellant not to marry as the marriage would have affect of spreading infection of his own disease, which obviously would be dangerous to life to the woman, he marries m apart from being an offence. It was also observed that right to privacy is an essential essential component of right to life as envisaged by Article 21.

14. In Kanchan Bedi's case (supra) plaintiff filed the application for DNA test of her son with the respondent. She claimed her marriage with the respondent took place at Hemkunt Sahib.. Hon'ble Apex Court directed the defendant-

defendant husband and plaintiff along with her son to present themselves at All Indian Institute of Medical Sciences, for providing their samples for DNA testing. In Heera Singh Singh's case (supra), criminal misc. petition filed led by the husband Heera Singh Singh, was dismissed by Allahabad ahabad High Court without notice to the wife. The claim of husband was that the child was not his legitimate child as he had no access to his wife. The DNA was refused on the ground that DNA cannot be all allowed owed unless the man shows that he had no access to wife. In Laila and Anr. (supra), JYOTI 2026.04.20 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4731 of 2023 (O&M) - 10- Kerala High Court held that father can seek declaration that child born to his wife was not his legitimate child. In Keshav Sood's case (supra),, Hon'ble Apex Court held that while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, CPC the court can look into only averments made iin n the plaint and at the highest, highest, document produced with the plaint plaint.

15. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the appellant and respondent No.1 got their marriage dissolved by decree of divorce by mutual consent in the year 2003. Respondent No.1 solemnized marriage with respondent No.2 in the year 2004. Appellant filed suit on 30.05.2019 to challenge the legitimacy of children of respondents. At the time of filing of sui suitt by the appellant, there was no marital relation between appellant and respondent No.1. The judgments cited by the appellant cannot be applied to the facts of the present case because of termination of marital relationship between the appellant and respondent No.1as No.1as they preferred to mutually dissolved their marriage by decree of divorce by mutual consent in the year 2003. The appellant cannot challenge the paternity of children of respondents born in n the year 2013 regarding whom respondent No.1claimed his paternity in the year 2017.

2017 It is not the business of appellant whether respondent No.1 is biological father of children of respondent No.2 or he bestowed fatherhood/name /name to these children. Referenc Referencee can be made hereto judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ivan Rathinam vs. Milan Joseph (Crl. Appeal No.413 of 2025 arising out of SLP No.4917/2018) in para No.56 56 wherein it is observed that :

JYOTI 2026.04.20 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

                                      FAO-4731 of 2023 (O&M)                         - 11-


                                      "It

It is well settled law that the Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the legitimacy of a person. However, the Family Court cannot entertain any proceedings for a declaration of legitimacy without a claim on the marital relationship".

16. There must be marital relationship between the parties to challenge the legitimacy off springs, therefore, learned trial Court rightly held that suit is not maintainable.

17. In view of above discussion, there is no merit in appeal. The impugned order passed by learned trial Court is upheld and appeal in hand, is dismissed being void of merit.

18. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.




                     (GURVINDER
                      GURVINDER SINGH GILL)                                  (RAMESH KUMARI))
                          JUDGE                                                   JUDGE

                     20.04.2026
                      Jyoti-IV

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No JYOTI 2026.04.20 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court