Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.94 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bommi And Minor Sonia Minor Rep. By ... vs Munirathinam on 28 July, 2004
12.This Court, in the decisions in 2005(1) L.W.713 [Bommi and another v. Munirathinam] and 2007 (3) L.W. 815 [Neerkathalinga Pandian v. Mrs.Komala and another] has followed the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sarada's case. In a Division Bench decision of Kerala High Court in AIR 2006 Kerala 191 [Joseph & etc., v. State of Kerala & Ors.] it is held that though D.N.A. Test cannot be ordered as matter of course in every case, it is permissible in exceptional case.
Smt. Kamti Devi & Anr vs Poshi Ram Respondent on 11 May, 2001
In the said decision, Kamti Devi's case (supra) has been referred. The following is the material portion in the judgment:-
Shri Banarsi Dass vs Mrs. Teeku Dutta And Anr on 27 April, 2005
16.In the above said case, the facts of the case go to the effect that the objector B alleged that Mrs. T was not daughter of the deceased, but she is the daughter of R and since the deceased and his wife both were dead who are parents of Mrs.T, it would not be possible to subject them to a DNA Test and compare with the D.N.A. test of Mrs.T, since R is alive D.N.A. Test of R and Mrs.T would conclusively establish the paternity of Mrs.T. The Trial Court allowed the application. But the High Court was of the opinion that it is not a fit case for directing D.N.A. test. That order was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Banarsi Dass Case.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Union Of India & Others vs M/S. G.T.C. Industries Limited on 27 March, 2003
16. ... ... ... The Full Bench of the Supreme Court has taken a different view from the one in Gautum Kundu's case, in its latter decision reported in Sharda v. Dharmpal reported in 2003 (2) CTC 760.
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs Bidyut Prava Dixit And Another on 14 October, 1999
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner also garnered support from another decision of the Apex Court in (1999) 7 SCC 675 [Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Another] wherein in a matrimonial case, in a hearing before the Supreme Court, the 1st respondent was prepared to have D.N.A.Test for finding out the father of the child, at that stage, the learned counsel for the appellant sought time for four (4) weeks to get instructions from the appellant and thereafter when the matter was placed for hearing on 20.8.1999, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that he was not willing to undergo D.N.A.test, therefore, the Supreme Court ordered that "this means appellant is disentitled to dispute the paternity of the child. This is recorded."