Karnataka High Court
Sidaramreddy S/O Venkatreddy vs Smt. Sugamma W/O Sidramreddy & Ors on 8 February, 2013
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N.Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH
AT GULBARGA
Dated this the 8th day of February, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.100530 of 2013 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
Sidaramreddy
S/o Venkatreddy
51 years
Occ: Nil
R/o Muraldoddi Village
Tq.Makthal
(AP)
... Petitioner
(By Sri S. G. Math, Advocate)
AND:
1 Smt. Sugamma
W/o Sidramreddy
Age 43 years
Occ: Household
R/o Shakthinagar
Tq: Raichur - 584 101
2 Kumar Sunilkumar
Age: 17 years, Occ: Student
2
3 Kumar Vishalkumar
Age: 15 years
Occ: Student
4 Kumar Prashanth
Age: 13 years
Occ: Student
Respondent No.2 to 4 are
Minors U/G of their natural mother
Respondent No.1 Smt. Sugamma and
All are R/o Shaktinagar, Tq. Raichur
...Respondents
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to a writ of certiorari,
quashing the order dt.21.11.12, passed by the Prl. Judge,
Family Court, Raichur on I.A.No.V in Crl.Misc.No.47/10
Annexure-E.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing
this day, Court made the following:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court declining to entertain the request of the petitioner for DNA blood test.
3
2. The petitioner-wife has filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance for herself and her three children.
3. Though the respondent does not deny the marriage, it is his specific case that she has got illegal relationship with others before marriage and after marriage and children are all born to them and not to him. Both the parties have adduced evidence. At the stage of arguments, this application is filed under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, requesting the Court to put himself and the minor children to DNA blood test to prove the paternity.
4. The Family Court was of the view that as number of documents are produced, oral evidence is adduced, it is possible to come to a definite conclusion on the basis of the said material, whether petitioners-2 to 4 are born to the respondent or not. Therefore it rejected the said application.
4
5. The petition filed by the wife is for maintenance. The relationship between the husband and wife is not disputed. The marriage is not disputed. What is disputed is the children are not born to him. It is for the petitioners to establish that children were born out of the wedlock. When the parties have adduced evidence the case is to be decided on the basis of said evidence. If they have not produced sufficient evidence, they will fail. There is nothing for the respondent to show that he is not the father in a proceedings under Section 125, and that too after the conclusion of the trial and when the case is set down for arguments. Therefore the Family Court was justified in dismissing the said application. No merit. Dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ksp/-