Dismissed

Mahadev Uttamrao Tarange and Ors. v. Suvarna Mahade Tarange and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Mar 2015WP/2070/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Judge dismissed a writ petition challenging a trial court order rejecting a defendant's application for a DNA test. The court held that paternity allegations were absurd and distinguished the Dipanwita Roy precedent, finding no case for interference.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed without a case for interference being made out in the facts.

Mahadev Uttamrao Tarange and Ors. Vs Suvarna… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

12.03.2015

¶2

WP-2070-15.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2070 OF 2015

¶5

Mahadev Uttamrao Tarange and others .. Petitioners Versus Suvarna Mahadev Tarange and others .. Respondents

¶6

Shri. Rupesh A. Zade, for the Petitioners.

¶7

CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 12^th MARCH, 2015

¶8

P.C.

¶9

1. The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 29.12.2014 passed by the Learned 2^nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malshiras, by which order the application Exh.25 filed by the Defendant for subjecting the Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 to a DNA test came to be rejected.

¶10

2. The said rejection is on the ground that the paternity of the Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 has been questioned on the basis of absurd allegations. The Trial Court has referred to the adjudication which took place in respect of the Criminal Misc. Application No.334 of 1990, wherein the Plaintiff No.3 i.e. mother of the Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and the Defendant No.1 i.e. present applicant filed compromise pursis wherein

¶11

1 of 2

¶12

BGP .

¶13

WP-2070-15.doc 12.03.2015

¶14

they agreed to cohabit with each other. It was on the basis of the said compromise pursis that the said proceeding was disposed of. The Trial Court observed that the facts in the judgment of the Apex Court in Dipanwita Roy Vs. Ronobroto Roy in Civil Appeal No.9744 of 2014 are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and therefore, the DNA test is not warranted. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners also seeks to rely upon the judgment of a Learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 888 in the matter of Namdeo Babasaheb Korde and another Vs. Babasaheb @ Babarao Ramkrishna Korde and others . In the facts of the present case, where the allegations in respect of the paternity of the Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are found absurd by the Trial Court. The said judgment would have no application. Hence, having regard to the reasons mentioned in the impugned order, no case for interference in the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶15

[R.M. SAVANT, J]

¶16

2 of 2

¶17

BGP .

Mahadev Uttamrao Tarange and Ors. v. Suvarna Mahade Tarange and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadev Uttamrao Tarange and Ors. v. Suvarna Mahade Tarange and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Ranjitsingh Linga and Anr. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Anr.

Shri. Subhash Tukaram Jadhav and Ors. Vs Shri. Prakash Ratnnappa Yadav

Sonu Bandugir Gosavi (Since Decd) through Lrs. and Ors. Vs Shri. Arun Dnyanoba Gosavi and Anr.

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Vs Shri. Nitin Waman Desai and Anr.

Shri. Dhondiba Alias Babu Khandu Khaire (Decd) through Lrs Vs Shri. Parshuram Genu Khaire and Ors.

Shri. Jairaj Devidas and Ors. Vs Shri. Keshav Shivram Chauhan and Ors.