Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.33 seconds)Bhabani Prasad Jena Etc vs Convenr.Sec.Orissa S.Comn.For ... on 3 August, 2010
8. Moreover, it is settled principle of law that the DNA
testing is not to be directed as a matter of routine. This direction
can be issued only in deserving cases. The Court can only exercise
this power if the applicant has a strong prima facie case. The Court
should exercise this discretion only after balancing the interest of
the parties and on due consideration whether for just decision of the
matter the DNA testing is eminently needed. The DNA testing in a
matter relating to paternity of a child should not be directed by the
Court as a matter of course in a routine manner whenever such a
3 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 29-10-2016 13:13:23 :::
CR No.3707 of 2016 -4-
request is made. The Court has to consider the diverse aspects
including the presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872. The test of eminent need is, whether it is not possible for
the Court to reach the truth without use of such test. To support this
view, reference can be made to the observations of Hon'ble Apex
Court in case Bhabani Prasad Jena Vs. Convenor Secretary,
Orissa State Commission for Women & anr., 2010(4) RCR (Civil)
Sube Singh vs Smt. Shanti Devi And Others on 10 March, 2014
In view of the consistent ratio of law laid down in the
cases mentioned above, the DNA test to determine the paternity of a
child can be ordered only in deserving cases where it is eminently
required for the just conclusion of the case. It cannot be ordered
merely on the asking of a party to the litigation as a matter of
routine as the paternity of a child carries the presumption under
Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the instant case, the
petitioner/plaintiff is in fact a stranger to the family of
defendant/respondent No.4-Tanuj. Moreover, the petitioner/plaintiff
has not placed on record any material to satisfy the test of strong
prima facie case to seek the DNA testing. As already mentioned,
the paternity of defendant/respondent No.4-Tanuj was never in
dispute in the previous litigation in which the mother of the
petitioner/plaintiff was a party through whom she is claiming the
rights in the present suit.
1