Kerala High Court
Xxxxxx vs Xxxxxx on 14 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA, 1943
OP (FC) NO. 670 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/9/2019 IN IA NOS.2537/2019,
2538/2019 and 2732/2019 IN OP 868/2016 OF FAMILY COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADVS.SINDHU SANTHALINGAM
SRI.A.D.SHAJAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
2 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
3 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADVS.SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
SMT.RESMI G. NAIR
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.08.2021, ALONG WITH OP (FC).679/2019, THE COURT ON
14.09.2019 THE FOLLOWING:
OP(FC) Nos.670 & 679/2019
-:2:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA, 1943
OP (FC) NO. 679 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA NOS.1570/19, 2535/19, 2536/19 AND
2731/2019 IN OP 1921/2013 OF FAMILY COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADVS.SINDHU SANTHALINGAM
SRI.A.D.SHAJAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
2 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADVS.SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
SMT.RESMI G. NAIR
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.08.2021, ALONG WITH OP (FC).670/2019, THE COURT ON
14.09.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(FC) Nos.670 & 679/2019
-:3:-
"C.R."
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 14th day of September, 2021
Kauser Edappagath, J.
Can a direction to undergo Deoxyribonucleic Acid Test
(commonly known as DNA Test) be given in a proceedings for
divorce to establish the husband's assertion of infidelity and
adultery on the part of the wife without the child in the party
array? - is the core question falls for consideration in these
Original Petitions.
2. The husband is the petitioner in both the original
petitions. The first respondent is the wife. The second
respondent is the brother-in-law (sister's husband) of the first
respondent.
3. The petitioner preferred OP No.1921/2013 for
dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, desertion and
adultery and OP No.868/2016 for recovery of money and gold
ornaments while the first respondent preferred OP No.432/2018
for recovery of money at the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram
OP(FC) Nos.670 & 679/2019
(for short, 'the court below'). The joint trial of all the three
petitions was ordered by the court below.
4. The main allegation of the petitioner in OP
No.1921/2013 is that the first respondent has been living
adulterous life with the second respondent and the child born to
the first respondent is that of the second respondent. To prove
infidelity and adulterous act on the part of the first respondent,
the petitioner filed IA No.1570/2019 to conduct DNA test of the
first respondent's son as also himself. The court below after
hearing both sides dismissed the said application as per the
impugned order dated 1/7/2019 on the ground that the child is a
necessary party to the petition and without the child on the party
array, its paternity and legitimacy cannot be determined.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed three interlocutory applications at
the court below; IA No.2535/2019 to implead the child, IA
No.2536/2019 for consequential amendment and IA
No.2731/2019 to appoint the first respondent as the guardian of
the child. The petitioner also filed similar applications as IA
Nos.2537/2019, 2538/2019 and 2732/2019 in OP No.868/2016.
The court below as per common order dated 20/9/2019 dismissed
OP(FC) Nos.670 & 679/2019
all those applications holding that the applications were highly
belated. Challenging the orders in IA Nos.1570/2019, 2535/2019,
2536/2019 and 2731/2019 in OP No.1921/2013, OP(FC) 679/2019
has been filed. Challenging the order in IA Nos.2537/2019,
2538/2019 and 2732/2019 in OP No.868/2016, OP(FC)
No.670/2019 has been filed.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. OP No.1921/2013 has been filed for dissolution of
marriage on the ground of cruelty, desertion and adultery. The
marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was
solemnized on 7/5/2006. A child was born to the first respondent
on 9/3/2007. The definite case of the petitioner is that the first
respondent is having adulterous relationship with the second
respondent and the child was born in the said illicit relationship.
The petitioner has also taken a specific plea that he was suffering
from infertility and incapable to have a child. The application to
conduct DNA test has been filed to prove that he is not the father
of the child and thereby to substantiate his assertion of infidelity
and adultery. The first respondent opposed the application on the
ground that in a lawyer notice sent by the petitioner as well as in
OP(FC) Nos.670 & 679/2019
the service records of the petitioner, he has admitted that he is
the father of the child. It was further contended that in the birth
certificate of the child also, the petitioner was shown as the
father. The court below dismissed the application not on merits,
but on the ground that the child was not impleaded. Thereafter,
when the petitioner filed application to implead the child and for
consequential amendment, those applications were also
dismissed on the ground of delay.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that
but for the DNA test, it would be impossible for the petitioner
husband to establish and confirm the assertions made by him in
his pleadings and hence, the court below ought to have ordered
the DNA Test. The Counsel further submitted that the petitioner
has made out a strong prima facie case to raise presumption
against legitimacy. Per contra, the learned counsel for the wife
placing reliance on Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act argued
that once the validity of marriage is proved, then there is strong
presumption about the legitimacy of children born from that
wedlock and the presumption can only be rebutted by a strong
and conclusive evidence. The counsel further submitted that
OP(FC) Nos.670 & 679/2019
even the evidence of adultery by the wife by itself is not sufficient
to repel this presumption and will not justify the finding of the
illegitimacy if the husband has had access. Non access between
the husband and wife is the only way to dislodge the conclusive
presumption enjoined by Section 112 of the Evidence Act and,
hence, the prayer for DNA test cannot be allowed in the absence
of strong prima facie proof of non access, submitted the counsel.
The counsel added that it is settled that no one can be compelled
to give sample of blood for analysis. The counsel relied on the
following decisions of the Apex Court in support of his
submission: Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal and
Another (AIR 1993 SC 2295) and Bhabani Prasad Jena v.
Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women
and Another (AIR 2010 SC 2851). In Goutam Kundu (supra),
the Apex Court while dealing with a question about the paternity
of a child noticed the provisions of S.112 of the Evidence Act and
held that the presumption arising thereunder can only be
displaced by a strong preponderance of evidence and not by a
mere balance of probabilities. It was further held that there must
be a strong prima facie case in that the husband has established
OP(FC) Nos.670 & 679/2019
non access in order to dispel the presumption arising under
S.112. In Bhabani Prasad Jena (supra), it was held that DNA
test or paternity test should not be directed by the court as a
matter of routine and such an order can only be given only if a
strong prima facie case is made out for such a course.
8. Both the judgments relied on by the learned counsel
for the respondent were on the question of legitimacy of the child
born during the subsistence of a valid marriage. The question
involved in OP No.1921/2013 pertains to the alleged infidelity and
adultery on the part of the respondent wife. It is to establish the
ingredients of S.13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act viz., that after
the solemnization of marriage of the petitioner with the first
respondent, the first respondent had voluntarily engaged in
sexual intercourse with the second respondent, the application to
conduct DNA test has been filed. The prayer made by the
petitioner for conducting DNA test of the first respondent's son
as also himself was to substantiate the alleged adulterous act of
the first respondent. Therefore, insofar as the present controversy
is concerned, S.112 of the Indian Evidence Act would not strictly
come into play. A similar issue came to be adjudicated by the
OP(FC) Nos.670 & 679/2019
Apex Court in Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (AIR 2015 SC
418), wherein it was held as follows:-
"The question that has to be answered in this case, is in
respect of the alleged infidelity of the appellant-wife. The
respondent-husband has made clear and categorical
assertions in the petition filed by him under Section 13 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging infidelity. He has gone to
the extent of naming the person, who was the father of
the male child born to the appellant-wife. It is in the
process of substantiating his allegation of infidelity, that
the respondent-husband had made an application before
the Family Court for conducting a DNA test, which would
establish whether or not, he had fathered the male child
born to the appellant-wife. The respondent feels that it is
only possible for him to substantiate the allegations
levelled by him (of the appellant-wife's infidelity) through
a DNA test. We agree with him. In our view, but for the
DNA test, it would be impossible for the respondent-
husband to establish and confirm the assertions made in
the pleadings. We are therefore satisfied, that the
direction issued by the High Court, as has been extracted
hereinabove, was fully justified. DNA testing is the most
legitimate and scientifically perfect means, which the
husband could use, to establish his assertion of infidelity.
This should simultaneously be taken as the most
authentic, rightful and correct means also with the wife,
for her to rebut the assertions made by the respondent-
husband, and to establish that she had not been
unfaithful, adulterous or disloyal. If the appellant-wife is
right, she shall be proved to be so."
OP(FC) Nos.670 & 679/2019
In Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik and
Another (AIR 2014 SC 932), the Apex Court took the view that
the result of a genuine DNA test is scientifically accurate and
when there is conflict between a conclusive proof envisaged
under law and a proof based on scientific advancement accepted
by the world community to be correct, the latter must prevail
over the former. Thus, it is borne out from the decisions of the
Apex Court in Dipanwita Roy (supra) and Nandlal Wasudeo
Badwaik (supra) that depending upon the facts and
circumstances of the case, it would be permissible for a court to
direct the holding of a DNA examination, to determine the
veracity of the allegations constituting the grounds for divorce if
a strong prima facie case is made out. In Sharda v. Dharmpal
(AIR 2003 SC 3450), the Apex Court has held that a matrimonial
court has the power to order a person to undergo a medical test
and such a direction need not be in violation of any right to
personal liberty. It was further held that while exercising the
power to order a medical test to be undergone by a person, the
court should exercise restraint and there must be a strong prima
facie case and sufficient material before the court to pass such an
OP(FC) Nos.670 & 679/2019
order. The wife's alleged adulterous act and infidelity are issues
to be decided in the original petition. In order to get a decree for
divorce u/s 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the petitioner must
establish that the first respondent has, after the solemnization of
marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other
than his or her spouse. The burden to prove the said fact is
entirely on the petitioner. DNA test result of the child, no doubt,
would be the best piece of evidence to substantiate the said
allegation. The opinion of a DNA expert is relevant u/s 45 of the
Evidence Act. The Court shall not preclude a party from adducing
evidence which may be relevant in accordance with the Evidence
Act to prove his case. Thus, we hold that when the husband seeks
dissolution of marriage alleging adultery or infidelity on the part
of the wife disputing the paternity of the child born during the
subsistence of their marriage, the court can order DNA test to
establish his assertion of infidelity or adultery without expressly
disturbing the presumption contemplated u/s 112 of the Evidence
Act with regard to the legitimacy of the child provided a strong
prima facie case is made out for such a course.
9. As stated already, the marriage was solemnized on
OP(FC) Nos.670 & 679/2019
7/5/2006 and the child was born to the first respondent on
9/3/2007. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was employed at
military service. The petitioner has specifically pleaded in the
original petition that after 22 days of the marriage he left to his
work place at Ladakh and during those 22 days or thereafter
there was no physical relationship between them due to the non
co-operation of the first respondent. The petitioner has also clear
pleading in the petition that the first respondent has been leading
an adulterous life with her brother-in-law. He has been impleaded
in the petition also. The definite case of the petitioner is that he
was suffering from infertility and there was no possibility for him
to have a child. The petitioner had earlier filed OP No.640/2009 at
the Court below for dissolution of marriage on the ground of
cruelty and desertion. Later, it was transferred to the Family
Court Nedumangad and renumbered as OP No.687/2012. The
said original petition was dismissed which was confirmed in
appeal. Even though the first respondent raised a preliminary
objection in OP No.1921/2013 that the said petition was barred by
the principles of res judicata on account of the dismissal of OP
No. 687/2012, the objection was ultimately overruled by this
OP(FC) Nos.670 & 679/2019
Court in Mat. Appeal No. 383/2016 holding that the petition was
not barred by the principles of res judicata. In OP No.640/2009 (re
numbered as OP No.687/2012), the Assistant Professor,
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical College,
Thiruvananthapuram was examined as PW3. He is an infertility
expert. His deposition has been produced and marked as Ext. P6
in OP(FC) No.670/2019. The Infertility Certificate issued by him to
the petitioner has been produced and marked as Ext. R1 (c) along
with the counter affidavit of the first respondent in OP(FC) No.
679/2019. The certificate was marked through him. It is stated in
the certificate that the petitioner is suffering from
oligoasthenoteratospermia. It is a condition that includes low
sperm number, low sperm motility and abnormal sperm
morphology. It is the commonest cause of male infertility. The
doctor gave evidence that there is no possibility for the petitioner
to have the child. The doctor further deposed that before issuing
the certificate, semen test of the petitioner was conducted. This
is a strong prima facie circumstance in support of the case of the
petitioner that he is not the biological father of the child. That
apart, the Family Court, Nedumangad in MC No.375/2012 filed by
OP(FC) Nos.670 & 679/2019
the first respondent seeking maintenance for the child against
the petitioner passed an order to conduct DNA test at the
instance of the petitioner herein. But, the first respondent failed
to comply with the direction of the Family Court to appear for
DNA test and hence, MC was dismissed. This is yet another strong
prima facie circumstance. For all these reasons, we are of the
view that the petitioner has made out a strong prima facie case
to order DNA test. DNA testing is the most authentic and
scientifically proved means to establish the paternity and thereby
prove the case of infidelity and adultery set up by the petitioner.
As observed by the Apex Court in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik
(supra), a presumption cannot prevail over truth of a fact
established by science.
10. The court below rejected the prayer for DNA test
mainly on the ground that the child was not made a party in the
application. There are two tests for determining the question
whether a particular party is a necessary party to the
proceedings or not: (1) There must be a right to some relief
against such party in respect of the matter involved in the
proceedings in question; and (2) It should not be possible to pass
OP(FC) Nos.670 & 679/2019
an effective decree in the absence of such a party. It is pertinent
to note that the original petition (OP No. 1921/2013) is not one
under S.7(1) r/w Explanation (e) of the Family Courts Act for a
declaration as to the legitimacy of any person. The petition is
only for dissolution of marriage u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The presence of child does not have any bearing whatsoever in
deciding the petition for dissolution of marriage on merit. The
illegitimacy or paternity of the child is only incidental to the claim
for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery or infidelity.
The child's presence is not necessary to adjudicate the relief
claimed. The finding, if any, as to the paternity or legitimacy of
the child in a proceedings for dissolution of marriage between the
husband and the wife would not bind the child who is not a party
to the proceedings. The child if it wishes to establish its paternity
and its legitimacy may do so by appropriate legal proceedings on
attaining majority. Inasmuch as the presence of the child is not
necessary to effectively adjudicate the lis, the child need not be
unnecessarily dragged to the proceedings. Two decisions of this
Court {Radhakrishnan P.S. v. A.Indu [2018 (3) KHC 877] and
Nizar v. Raseena [2018 (5) KHC 356]} were relied on by the
OP(FC) Nos.670 & 679/2019
court below in support of its finding that child is a necessary
party in the proceedings. But, the prayer in both those decisions
was to declare the illegitimacy of the child. Hence, the dictum in
those decisions cannot be applied to the present petitions. We, in
the circumstances, hold that in a petition filed by the husband
seeking dissolution of marriage alleging adultery or infidelity on
the part of the wife disputing the paternity of the child born
during the subsistence of their marriage, the child is not a
necessary party. In such a petition, the court can order DNA test
to establish the husband's assertion of infidelity and adultery on
the part of the wife without the child in the party array if a strong
prima facie case is made out.
In the light of the above findings, the dismissal of IA
No.1570/2019 by the court below cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, we allow OP(FC) No.679/2019 in part and set aside
the dismissal of IA No.1570/2019. We allow IA No.1570/2019. The
DNA test of the petitioner as well as the son of the first
respondent shall be conducted at Rajiv Gandhi Centre for
Biotechnology, Thiruvananthapuram. The court below in
consultation with the Center shall fix the date and time. The first
OP(FC) Nos.670 & 679/2019
respondent shall accompany the child to the Center. The
petitioner shall also be present. The DNA samples of the child and
the petitioner shall be obtained by the laboratory in the presence
of the petitioner and the first respondent. The petitioner shall
bear the expenses. OP(FC)No.670/2019 stands dismissed. The
parties are directed to bear their respective costs in both the
original petitions.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
Rp
OP(FC) Nos.670 & 679/2019
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 679/2019
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
6.3.2019 IN MAT.APPEAL NO.383/2016 OF
THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.7.2019
IN I.A.NO.1570/2019 IN OP.1921/2013 OF
THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.9.2019
IN IA.NO.2537/2019, IA.2538/2019 &
IA.2732/2019 IN OP.NO.868/2016 OF THE
FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAURAM.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.9.2019
IN IA.2535/2019, IA.2536/2019 &
IA.2731/2019 IN OP.1921/2013 OF THE
FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
15.11.2011 IN OP(FC)NO.1403/2011 OF THE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW3 IN
O.P.(HMA)640/2009 OF FAMILY COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW4 IN
OP(HMA)640/2009 OF FAMILY COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
20.12.2012 IN OP(FC)NO.4441/2012 OF THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
OP(FC) Nos.670 & 679/2019
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.1.2013
IN CMP.NO.10/2013 IN MC.NO.375/2012 OF
FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.6.2013
IN MC.NO.375/2012 OF FAMILY COURT,
NEDUMANGAD.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.2.2015
IN CMP.NO.2412/2914 IN MC.NO.29/2014 OF
THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.777 DATED
19.2.2015 ISSUED BY RAJIV GANDHI CENTRE
FOR BIO -TECHNOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED
19.2.2015 ISSUED BY RAJIV GANDHI CENTRE
FOR BIO - TECHNOLOGY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
19.2.2015 ISSUED BY RAJIV GANDHI CENTRE
FOR BIO - TECHNOLOGY TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
4.3.2015 ISSUED BY RAJIV GANDHI CENTER
FOR BIO - TECHNOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
TO THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST
CLASS - 2, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(a) COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED
24.3.2009 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R1(b) COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
14.5.2009
OP(FC) Nos.670 & 679/2019
EXHIBIT R1(c) COPY OF INFERTILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED
BY DR.T.V.SARAVANAKUMAR, ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF OBSTETRICS &
GYNECOLOGY, MEDICAL COLLEGE, TRIVANDRUM
ON 4.3.2011 TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(d) COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11.7.2013 IN OP
NO.687/2012 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
NEDUMANGAD.
EXHIBIT R1(e) COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 24.9.2013 IN
MAT.APPEALNO.606/2013 OF THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
OP(FC) Nos.670 & 679/2019
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 670/2019
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
6.3.2019 IN MAT. APPEAL NO.383/2016 OF
THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.7.2019
IN I.A.NO.1570/2019 IN O.P.1921/2013 OF
THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.9.2019
IN I.A.NO.2537/2019, IA 2538/2019 AND IA
2732/2019 IN O.P.NO.868/2016 OF THE
FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.9.2019
IN I.A.NO.2535/2019, IA 2536/2019 AND IA
2731/2019 IN O.P.NO.1921/2013 OF THE
FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
15.11.2011 IN OP(FC) NO.1403/2011 OF THE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW3 IN
O.P. (HMA)640/2009 OF FAMILY COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW4 IN
O.P.(HMA)640/2009 OF FAMILY COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
20.12.2012 IN O.P.(FC) NO.4441/2012 OF
THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
OP(FC) Nos.670 & 679/2019
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.1.2013
IN CMP NO.10/2013 IN MC NO.375/2012 OF
FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.6.2013
IN MC NO.375/2012 OF FAMILY COURT,
NEDUMANGAD.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.2.2015
IN CMP NO.2412/2014 IN MC NO.29/2014 OF
THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.777 DATED
19.2.2015 ISSUED BY RAJIV GANDHI CENTRE
FOR BI-TECHNOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED
19.2.2015 ISSUED BY RAJIV GANDHI CENTRE
FOR BI-TECHNOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
19.2.2015 ISSUED BY RAJIV GANDHI CENTRE
FOR BI-TECHNOLOGY TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
4.3.2015 ISSUED BY RAJIV GANDHI CENTRE
FOR BI-TECHNOLOGY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO
THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST
CLASS-2,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(a) COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED
24.3.2009 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R1(b) COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
14.5.2009
OP(FC) Nos.670 & 679/2019
EXHIBIT R1(c) COPY OF INFERTILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED
BY DR.T.V.SARAVANAKUMAR, ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF OBSTETRICS &
GYNECOLOGY, MEDICAL COLLEGE, TRIVANDRUM
ON 4.3.2011 TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(d) COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11.7.2013 IN OP
NO.687/2012 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
NEDUMANGAD.
EXHIBIT R1(e) COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 24.9.2013 IN
MAT.APPEAL NO.606/2013 OF THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
