Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.31 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Goutam Kundu vs State Of West Bengal And Anr on 14 May, 1993
9. From the above dictum laid down by the Apex Court as well as other High Court, it cannot be said that the Court has no power to order blood test or DNA test to be conducted. Nobody has got a fundamental right as such without anything more on facts to object to such test being conducted. At the same time the Court has made it clear that it is only in appropriate cases where such a direction is found necessary on the factual situation arising in the case that such a course should be adopted. Therefore, to put it widely that the Court cannot compelled to a person to undergo a blood test or medical test will be contrary to the decision laid down by the Apex court as aforesaid. Therefore, the observation made in the impugned order as having held that the court has no power to order DNA test to be conducted cannot be sustained. But in the impugned order, the Court-below has further held that from the facts and circumstances of the case it is unjust to compel the respondent to undergo DNA test. As a matter of fact whether or not such a DNA test is required to be done is a matter that will have to be considered in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Smt. Kamti Devi & Anr vs Poshi Ram Respondent on 11 May, 2001
In this connection the counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the supreme Court in Kanti Devi v. Poshi Ram, AIR 2001 SC 2226 wherein the Apex Court considered the question as to when Section 112 raises a conclusive presumption about the paternity of the child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage and whether it is still open to a party to escape from the conclusiveness of Section 112 of the Act by conducting another DNA test. In that regard the Apex Court held that Section 112 which raises a conclusive presumption about the paternity of the child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage, itself provides an outlet to the party who wants to escape from the rigour of that conclusiveness. The said outlet is, if it can be shown that the parties had no access to each other at the time when the child could have been begotten the presumption could be rebutted. In other words, the party Who wants to dislodge the conclusiveness has the burden to show a negative, not merely that he did not have the opportunity to approach his wife that she too did not have the opportunity of approaching him during the relevant time.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Union Of India & Others vs M/S. G.T.C. Industries Limited on 27 March, 2003
In the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003) 4 SCC 493 : (AIR 2003 SC 3450) the Apex Court has considered under Article 21 of the Constitution of India whether a matrimonial Court has the power to direct a party to undergo medical examination and whether passing of such an order would be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court concluded that the matrimonial court the power to order a person to undergo medical test. The decision was summed up in paragraph 81 as follows :--