Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Cr.P.C.", has been rejected 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)

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 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 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 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.

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.