Gopalakrishnan vs Unnikrishnan
2022 Latest Caselaw 9774 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
      THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
 FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 4TH BHADRA, 1944
                    OP(CRL.) NO. 105 OF 2019
 CMP No.232/2013 (old CMP No.855/2013) in MC 30/2013 OF
                    FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM
PETITIONER:

         GOPALAKRISHNAN
         S/O.MUSALI GUPTHAN,
         MANNATTIL VEEDU,
         THIRUVAZHIYODE.P.O, OTTAPALAM TALUK.
         BY ADVS.
         S.RAJEEV
         K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
         V.VINAY
         M.S.ANEER
         SARATH K.P.


RESPONDENT:

         UNNIKRISHNAN (minor)
         AGED 4 YEARS
         REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SREEKUMARI,
         MUDUKKUNNIYIL VEEDU, THIRUVAZHIYODE.P.O.,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, OTTAPALAM-679514.

         BY ADV SRI.P.JAYARAM


OTHER PRESENT:


         SMT T V NEEMA -SR Public Prosecutor


     THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.08.2022,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(Crl.)No.105 of 2019


                                  ..2..




                            JUDGMENT

Ext.P1 order of the Family Court, Ottapalam is under

challenge in this O.P.(Crl.).

2. The respondent herein through his mother filed

M.C.No.30/2013 at the Family Court, Ottapalam (for short 'the

court below') claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the

Cr.P.C. against the petitioner.

3. According to the respondent, he is the son of the

petitioner born to his mother. The father disputed the

paternity. Hence, the respondent filed an application at the

court below to conduct DNA test of the petitioner as well as

the respondent. The petition was allowed by the court below

as per Ext.P1 order. The said order is under challenge in this

O.P.(Crl.).

4. I have heard Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel for

the petitioner and Sri.P.Jayaram, the learned counsel for the

respondent.

O.P.(Crl.)No.105 of 2019

..3..

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that after filing the petition by the respondent herein, the

court below directed the parties to adduce oral evidence and

adjourned the consideration of the petition after adducing oral

evidence. Thereafter, the oral evidence was adduced.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, without

taking note of the oral evidence adduced, the petition was

allowed.

6. It is true that there is no much discussion of the

oral evidence in the impugned order. However, the crucial

point to be considered in the M.C. is whether the petitioner is

the father of the child or not. When paternity is in dispute, the

best way to prove the same is by conducting DNA test.

Therefore, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in

the impugned order.

The O.P.(Crl.) is dismissed.

Sd/-

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE skj O.P.(Crl.)No.105 of 2019

..4..

APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 105/2019

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/02/2019 IN CMP 232/2013 IN MC NO.30/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28/01/2012 IN SC 40/2008 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD DIVISION, OTTAPALAM