Mukunda S/O Ramaji Kamadi vs Sanjivani Mukunda Kamadi
2017 Latest Caselaw 8359 Bom

 Judgment                                          1                                 wp770.15.odt




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                 

                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                           WRIT PETITION NO. 770  OF 2015


 Mukunda S/o. Ramaji Kamadi,
 aged about 41 years, Occu.: Labour, 
 R/o. Sarwadi, Tahsil -Karanja (Ghatge),
 District : Wardha. 

                                                                       ....  PETITIONER.

                                    //  VERSUS //


 Sanjivani Mukunda Kamadi,
 Aged about 32 years, Occ. : Labour, 
 C/o. Sahebrao Ramaji Dongre, 
 R/o. Village-Kajali, Tahsil - Karanja
 (Ghatge), District : Wardha. 
                                                                      .... RESPONDENT
                                                                                    .

  ___________________________________________________________________
 Shri S.R.Renu, Adv. h/f. Shri Rohit Joshi, Advocate for Petitioner. 
 Ms S.H. Bhatia, Advocate (appointed) for Respondent. 
 ___________________________________________________________________


                              CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : NOVEMBER 02, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.

Judgment 2 wp770.15.odt

3. The petitioner(husband) has challenged the order passed by the

trial Court rejecting the application (Exh.25) filed by him praying for

conducting DNA test of the daughter of the respondent(wife), the contention

of the petitioner(husband) being that he is not natural father of that child.

The learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the judgment given by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dipanwita Roy Vs. Ronobroto Roy,

reported in (2015) 1 SCC 365 to support his argument that the impugned

order is unsustainable and the application (Exh.25) filed by him should have

been allowed.

4. The learned advocate for the respondent(wife) has opposed the

petition reiterating the grounds on which the application (Exh.25) was

opposed before the trial Court as recorded in the impugned order. It is

submitted that similar application filed by the petitioner earlier was rejected

and review application was also dismissed and therefore, the order passed by

the trial Court on the application (Exh.25) cannot be faulted with.

In this petition, the petitioner has also challenged the orders

passed by the trial Court earlier rejecting similar application and the order

passed on the review application.

5. After hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties

and considering the facts on record, I find that the issue raised in the petition

is covered by the proposition laid down in the above referred judgment given

in the case of Dipanwita Roy vs. Ronobroto Roy.

Judgment 3 wp770.15.odt

6. Considering the facts of the case, following order is passed:

i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (i-a),

(i-b) and (i-c) of the petition.

ii) The petitioner shall deposit the amount for conducting

the test as requested by him before the trial Court till 30 th

November, 2017.

In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

Fees of Ms S.H. Bhatia, advocate appointed for the respondent

(wife) is quantified at Rs.4000/-.

JUDGE

RRaut..