held that the matrimonial court has the power to order a person to undergo a medical test. Relying upon the very same decision this court also held that it is permissible but the court should exercise such a power if parties have a strong prima facie case and there is sufficient material before the court. This Court also held that presumption under Section 112 cannot be drawn and therefore DNA test has to be allowed. Now the learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the finding of the court that Section 112 will not apply is incorrect. Section 112 deals with the Birth during marriage, as conclusive proof of legitimacy. As per that Section, the fact that any person during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man, or within 280 days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive proof that he is the legitimate son of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when he could have been begotten. The learned counsel for the review petitioner had brought to my notice, the pleadings in the original suit. Admittedly the 1st plaintiff is the son of the 2nd plaintiff. The question is whether the 1st plaintiff is born to the
