CMPMO No. 201 of 2015. Case: Narinder Kumar Vs Tej Ram alias Taru Ram and Ors.. Himachal Pradesh High Court
| Case Number | CMPMO No. 201 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Adv. and For Respondent: Sanjeev Kuthiala, Ms. Ambika Kotwal, Advs. |
| Judges | Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. |
| Issue | Evidence Act (1 of 1872) - Sections 45, 112 |
| Citation | AIR 2016 HP 24 |
| Judgement Date | August 18, 2015 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh High Court |
Judgment:
-
The petitioner is a minor and by medium of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has taken exception to the order passed by the learned trial Court whereby it has directed him to undergo Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) test.
The facts, in brief, may be noticed.
-
The plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration to the effect that defendant No.6 (petitioner herein) was neither his legitimate or illegitimate son and, therefore, his name as entered in the records of Zonal Hospital, Mandi, in labour register dated 27.07.2004 as father of the petitioner and on the basis of this entry, the entry in the birth register of M.C., Mandi vide serial No.1536, dated 31.07.2004 and further the entry to this effect in the Office of Gram Panchayat, Dushad, Sub-Tehsil Sainj, be declared illegal and wrong.
-
During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer that the DNA test of the petitioner be conducted, which application stands allowed by the trial Court. The order has been assailed on the ground that in case the petitioner is compelled to undergo DNA test and the results appear to be positive i.e. the petitioner is not the son of respondent No.1, then in that event, the petitioner would be declared a "bastard" and it would be difficult for him to stay in the society.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
-
It has to be remembered that in a matter where paternity of a child is in issue before the Court, the use of DNA test is an extremely delicate and sensitive aspect. One view is that when modern science gives the means of ascertaining the paternity of a child, there should not be any hesitation to use those means whenever the occasion requires. The other view is that the Court must be reluctant in the use of such scientific advances
and tools which result in invasion of right to privacy of an individual and may not be prejudicial to the rights of the parties but may have devastating effect on the child. Sometimes, the result of such a scientific test may bastardize an innocent child even though his mother and her spouse were living together during the time of conception. Any order for DNA test can be given by the Court only if a strong prima facie case is made out for such a course.
-
In Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor...
To continue reading
Request your trial