Disposed

Sanu v. Salva

Kerala HC20 Mar 2018OP (FC)/142/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside a lower court order directing a DNA test in a divorce petition. Relying on Section 112 of the Evidence Act, the Court held that since there was no previous dispute regarding paternity and the husband's plea was an afterthought, sending the wife for a DNA test was not appropriate. The original petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The order directing a DNA test was set aside, and the original petition was disposed of.

Sanu Vs Salva — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶6

OP (FC).No. 142 of 2018

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2018 IN IA NO. 5608/2017 IN OP NO. 809/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR

¶8

PETITIONER/PETITIONER

¶9

1 SANU, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.EDAVAZHIKKAL VEETTIL VELAYUDHAN,

¶10

PALLIPURAM VILLAGE DESOM AND P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,PIN-688 541.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT

¶12

SRI.K.N.ABHILASH

¶13

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶14

SALVA, AGED 54 YEARS,D/O.LATE DAMODHARAN, PUDUKULANGARA,CHERTHALA TALUK,PALLIPURAM.P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,PRESENT ADDRESS C/O.SUGATHAMBIKA,PUDUKULANGARA HOUSE, KUTTOOR DESOM, VILLAGE AND P.O., THRISSUR TALUK,PIN-680 013.

¶15

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

OP (FC).No. 142 of 2018 (R)

¶17

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21.10.2017 IN I.A.NO.5608/2017 IN OP NO.809/2016 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 19.12.2017 IN I.A.NO.5608/2017 IN OP.NO.809/2016 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2018 IN I.A.NO.5608/2017 IN OP NO.809/2016 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR.

¶20

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶21

/TRUE COPY/

¶22

P.A. TO JUDGE.

¶23

V. CHITAMBARESH & K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.

¶24

OP(FC) No. 142 of 2018

¶25

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20^th day of March, 2018

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Chitambaresh, J.

¶28

The paternity of the child was not disputed in the earlier proceedings between the parties. The earlier proceedings are in O.P. No. 910/2013 for gold ornaments and M.C. No. 255/2013 for maintenance. Never did the father have a case that the child is not his. It is only in the present original petition for divorce has the plea been taken.

¶29

The court below has correctly found that the plea of the husband is an afterthought. The child was born in a wedlock and there was access between the spouses. The court below has also relied on Section 112 of the Evidence Act for raising a presumption. We do not think that this is a fit case for DNA test. It is correct that the court below has passed Ext.P3 order impugned in this original petition.

¶30

The Original Petition is disposed of.

¶31

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶32

K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH JUDGE

¶33

ncd

Sanu v. Salva

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanu v. Salva

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

Mohanan Vs v.Sajikumar

Ambily Vs Binukuttan @ Binu

P.v.George Tharakan & Co. Vs M/S.South India Wire Ropes Ltd.

M/S.Royal Blue Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Renuka Kumari

Suveesh Vs Bijinabal

Surendran Vs Lakshmi