Italy. Though such a stand is taken by the 1st petitioner, however, no material whatsoever has been placed before the court below to show that the 1st petitioner was staying along with the respondent as her wife and that during the said period, petitioners 2 and 3 were born. Further, no material relating to the birth of petitioners 2 and 3 has been placed before the trial court. Mere pleading would not be sufficient to accede to the prayer of the 1st petitioner for conducting DNA test. Firstly, the 1st petitioner has to establish her stay with the respondent and secondly that during the said period of stay, petitioners 2 and 3 were born. However, as stated above, no material whatsoever on that aspect has been placed before the trial court. The 1st petitioner cannot, under the guise of conducting a DNA test to establish the parentage of petitioners 2 and 3, harass and the respondent and drag and besmirch by filing such petitions. Without any material, the 1st petitioner, through a fishing expedition of DNA test, cannot impose upon the respondent to submit himself to DNA test. The trial court has adverted to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court and has rightly dismissed the prayer of the petitioners for conduct of DNA test, which cannot be said to be illegal or perverse warranting interference. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. However, this Court, at this point of time is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and leaves it to the parties to raise all issues at the time of trial.
