Disposed

Kopleri Hamza v. Kizhakkepallikkal Haseena

Kerala HC6 Feb 2009Crl.MC/413/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous case, the Court directed the Family Court to number and preserve the DNA test application. The Court clarified that such tests should only be ordered when access is proven and the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act is displaced, without expressing an opinion on the case merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Family Court to number and keep the DNA test application and dispose of it only after evidence regarding access is completed and the presumption of Section 112 Evidence Act is displaced.

Kopleri Hamza Vs Kizhakkepallikkal Haseena — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 413 of 2009() -----------------------MC.563/2008 of ....................

¶4

PETITIONER(S): --------------KOPLERI HAMZA, S/O.KUNJU MOHAMMED, PANNIYANCHALIL VEEDU, P.O.PAYYANAD, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶5

BY ADV. SRI.P.SHAMSUDIN

¶6

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶7

KIZHAKKEPALLIKKAL HASEENA, D/O.KIZHAKKEPALLIKKAL KUNJI POKKER, KIZHAKKEPALLIKKAL VEEDU, NAMBOORIPPOTTI, ERANJIMANGAD, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

JERISA, AGED 15 YEARS, D/O.KOPLERI HAMZA.

¶9

SIDIRA, AGED 13 YEARS, D/O.HASEENA.

¶10

MOHAMMED SANATH, AGED 11 YEARS, S/O.HAZEENA, (MINOR RESPONDENTS ARE REPRESENTED BY MOTHER IST RESPONDENT).

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶12

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV. SRI. GIKKU JACOB

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

M.N. KRISHNAN, J

¶15

CRL.M.C.No. 413 OF 2009

¶16

Dated this the 6^th day of February, 2009

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed to direct the Family Court, Malappuram

¶19

to allow the prayer in Annexure A5 petition to refer the petitioner and respondents 1, 3 and 4 to the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation for Bio Technology, Thiruvananthapuram for conducting DNA test. A report was called from the Judge, Family Court Malappuram. The learned Judge has submitted that the question of the application for DNA test can be considered only when necessity arises and when non access is proved which will displace the presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act. So here one has to find out whether there was an access or possibility of an access and only on determination of the same and making sure that the presumption under Section 112 may not be available,

¶20

the further question has to be probed into. I am not expressing anything on the merits of the case but I make it clear that the Family Court shall number and keep the application for sending persons to DNA test and dispose of it as and when the evidence

¶21

Crl.M.C.No. 413/2009

¶22

-2-

¶23

with respect to the access is completed. The court has to satisfy

¶24

its judicial conscience before passing an order.

¶25

Crl. M.C. Disposed of accordingly.

¶26

M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE

¶27

vkm

Kopleri Hamza v. Kizhakkepallikkal Haseena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kopleri Hamza v. Kizhakkepallikkal Haseena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Valsan Vs Krishnan

M/S. Shree Narayana Metallurgical Vs M/S.Sri Narayana Engineering Industries

T.Koya Vs P.Ahammed Koya and Others

Velayudhan Vs Subramanian & Another

K.D. Scariachan Vs P.C. Johnson

Noufal and Another Vs State of Kerala