Dismissed

Sri Rajappa v. Smt Baby

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2024WP/20226/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Father challenged a Family Court order directing a DNA test of his daughter to establish paternity in his wife and child's Section 125 CrPC maintenance claim, citing precedent against such tests. The High Court found no bonafides, held the DNA report would assist adjudication, dismissed the petition with costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; costs of Rs.10,000 to be paid to the High Court Advocates Association within two weeks.

Sri Rajappa Vs Smt Baby — Child Custody and Guardianship | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:36482 WP No. 20226 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 20226 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. RAJAPPA, S/O. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT KALVAMANJILI VILLAGE, VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563102.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. NANJUNDA GOWDA M.R.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT. BABY, D/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶12

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

KUM. CHAITHANYA, D/O. SMT. BABY, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, 2^ND RESPONDENT IS MINOR HENCE HER MOTHER IS REPRESENTED AS NATURAL GUARDIAN. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KALVAMANJILI VILLAGE, VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 563102.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.06.2024 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.F.C.58/2022 ON THE

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:36482 WP No. 20226 of 2024

¶18

FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, KOLAR VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRILIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.6 in Crl.Misc.No.58/2022 dated 29.06.2024 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kolar whereby the Trial Court had ordered the DNA test of the daughter from the FSL. The Father is before this Court.

¶23

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein who are the mother and daughter have filed the petition under Section 125 CrPC. seeking maintenance from the petitioner on the ground that he is the husband of respondent No.1 and father of the respondent No.2 herein.

¶24

The petitioner/father has filed his objections and contested that he has no relationship with respondent Nos.1 and 2 and he had denied that respondent No.1 is the wife and petitioner No.2 is the daughter. On behalf of both the parties oral as well as documentary evidence is adduced. At that point

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:36482 WP No. 20226 of 2024

¶27

of time, the wife had filed this application to conduct the DNA test on the daughter to decide the paternity of the child. The Trial Court had allowed the application and permitted the petitioners to secure the DNA report. Aggrieved thereby the respondent therein before the Trial Court, is before this Court.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner/father submits that the DNA test ought not to have been ordered as it will have an impact on the child and he has relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bhabani Prasad Jena Vs. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women and another¹ . Relying on this judgement, he submits that if the DNA test is ordered, it would have an impact on the child and generally that kind of an order should not be passed in the interest of the child. He submits that the Trial Court was not right in allowing that application.

¶29

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material placed on record. The application is filed by the mother. The father has denied the paternity of the child and also it is his case that he has no relationship with the respondent No.1. When such is the case, the Trial Court had 1AIR 2010 SC 2851

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:36482 WP No. 20226 of 2024

¶32

rightly allowed his application as the FSL report on DNA will assist the Court in adjudicating the dispute between the parties. The father at one breath denies the paternity and on the other comes before this Court saying that if the test is ordered it would have an impact on the child. There are no bonafides on the part of the petitioner in filing these kind of applications. He is trying to blow hot and cold at the same time. It appears that only for the purpose of dragging on the proceedings the present petition is filed before this Court. This is nothing but a pure abuse of process of law. Hence, this Court is passing the following,

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the High court Advocates Association within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶35

ii. All I.As., in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶36

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶37

BN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Sri Rajappa v. Smt Baby

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rajappa v. Smt Baby

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Director Vs P. Ramu

The Managing Director Vs Doddonu @ Lingaiah

Mr Hitisha Chopra Vs Mr Gaurav Chopra

Smt Yamuna M R Vs Sri Nagaraju T

Sapthagiri Digital Vs Karnataka Chinmaya Seva

Smt. Vandana Machaya Vs Sri. C. B. Muthanna