Order dismissing the petitioner's application challenging the Family Court direction to conduct a D.N.A. test between the husband (respondent 1) and a respondent in alleged adultery case, affirming the order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.26 of 2022
======================================================
Chanchal Devi @ Chanchal Kumari Wife of Arvind Kumar Patel, resident of Village-Bhagwatipur, Post-Barka Amaon, Police Station-Chainpur, DistrictKaimur, presently daughter of Rajbansh Singh, resident of Village-Ajhashpur, Police Station-Bhabua, District-Kaimur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jitendra Prasad Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER
2 23-06-2022 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order, dated 05.10.2021, passed, by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaimur, at Bhabhua, in Matrimonial Case No. 75 of 2007, whereby the learned Court below has directed for D.N.A. test of the child with the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 1 is the husband of the petitioner and respondent no. 2 is the stranger and in the matrimonial case filed by the respondent no. 1 for divorce, he has alleged that the petitioner is having illicit relationship with respondent no. 2. He submits that the petitioner is ready for D.N.A. test with respondent no. 2, but
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.26 of 2022(2) dt.23-06-2022 2/2
by the impugned order, the learned Court below has directed for D.N.A. test of respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Having considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner is ready for D.N.A. test of the child to be compared with the D.N.A. of respondent no. 2, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order directing for D.N.A. test of the husband (respondent no. 1) also. Accordingly, I do not find any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.
This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
U √
Chanchal Devi @ Chanchal Kumari
Arvind Kumar Patel
Sanjay Singh
Anil Kumar Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
