Disposed

Alamelu v. Arimuthu

Madras HC18 Dec 2020CRP/583/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 regarding DNA testing to establish paternity, the Hon'ble Court disposed of the plea seeking to set aside a trial court order. The Bench noted that since the first defendant had died, the original DNA prayer was infructuous yet ordering tests against surviving parties was not justified in revision. The Court closed the revision and directed the pet

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was disposed of; petitioners directed to seek DNA test with surviving respondents before the trial court for a fresh hearing on merits.

Alamelu Vs Arimuthu — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 18.12.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶5

C.R.P.No.583 of 2018 and C.M.P.Nos.3132 of 2018 and 10468 of 2020

¶6

1.Alamelu 2.Sathiya 3.Minor Manigandan [Represented by his natural guardian 1^st petitioner] .. Petitioners Vs. 1.Arimuthu 2.Chandra 3.Venkatesh ..Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and final order dated 06.01.2017 passed by Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai made in I.A.No.551 of 2013 in O.S.No.239 of 2007.

¶7

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Jawahar For Respondents : Mrs.R.T.Sundari for R2 and R3 O R D E R

¶8

This matter is taken up for hearing through VideoConferencing.

¶9

2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order made in I.A.No. 551 of 2013 rejecting an application filed by the petitioners / plaintiffs seeking DNA test to prove their status as children of the first defendant.

¶10

Pending Revision, the first defendant had died. Hence, the petitioers have come up with the petition in C.M.P.No.10468 of 2020 seeking DNA test for the petitioners 2 and 3 along with the respondents, who are admittedly the children of the first defendant.

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

The learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the same contending that the DNA test cannot be ordered as against the wishes of the parties. Though, the said statement in unacceptable, however, on the death of the first defendant, the prayer in I.A.No.551 of 2013 has become infructuous. I do not think, I will be justified in ordering DNA test for the petitioners and the respondents in order to ascetain the paternity of the petitioners 2 and 3 in this revision. However, the petitioners 2 and 3 cannot be left high and dry due to the death of the first defendant / first respondent.

¶13

4. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to seek DNA test with the respondents 2 and 3 before the trial court. If such application is filed, the trial court is directed to dispose it of on merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order or in the order of the trial court in I.A.No. 551 of 2013, which is subject matter of the Revision.

¶14

5. This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar dsa To The Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai.

¶15

+1cc to Mr.B.Jawahar, Advocate, S.R.No. 42676

¶16

C.R.P.No.583 of 2018 SS(CO) GN(18/01/2021)

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Alamelu v. Arimuthu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alamelu v. Arimuthu

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

Ragu @ Kannan Vs the Catholic Syrian Bank

D.Thangamuthu Vs N.Senthilkumar

Padma @ Padmavathi Vs Athanappan (Died)

Don Bosco Mat.Hr.Sec.School Vs R.Vijayakumar

G.K.Srinivasan Vs N.P.Yasodha

V.Dhachayani Vs G.Padma