Bipin Kumar Singh vs Smt. Pushpa Devi
2023 Latest Caselaw 96 Patna

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.568 of 2018
                                                   In
                                Miscellaneous Appeal No.302 of 2017
                ======================================================

Bipin Kumar Singh son of Sri Ram Brichh Singh, Resident of Village- Madadpur, PS-Pundarakh, District-Patna

... ... Petitioner/s Versus Smt. Pushpa Devi wife of Bipin Singh, daughter of late Alakhdeo Singh, Resident of Village-Ratana, PS-Chhabilapur, District- Nalanda. ====================================================== Appearance :

                For the Petitioner/s   :     Mr. Sriram Krishna,
                                             Mr. Amarjeet
                                             Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma, Advocates.
                For the Respondent/s   :     Mr. Rabindra Prasad Singh, Advocate
                Amicus Curiae          :     Ms. Surya Nilambari, Advocate

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA CAV JUDGMENT/ORDER

12 09-01-2023 The only issue that arises for consideration in this

case is whether a direction should be given for conducting the

DNA Test on one Khushi Kumari, a minor daughter of the

respondent to ascertain her biological connection with the

petitioner who denies that he is not Khushi Kumari's biological

father to prove the allegation of infidelity brought by the

petitioner against the respondent in a Divorce Case. The

petitioner seeks to establish that Khushi Kumari was born of

illicit relationship between his wife and another person. The

paternity of the child is not a question in this case, thus, is only

incidental to the main issue which pertains to whether or not the

petitioner's wife has been faithful to him. To substantiate the

ground of adultery, on which the divorce is being sought along Patna High Court C.Misc. No.568 of 2018 dt. 09-01-2023

with other grounds, the case of the petitioner is that Khushi

Kumari is the living example of adultery of his wife. The

petitioner has not only pleaded that he had no contact with his

wife/respondent at the time she conceived i.e., in 2005, but also

claims that he is incapable of fathering a child and had been so

in the entire course of marriage.

2. The petitioner has filed the present case for setting

aside the order dated 15.02.2017 passed in Matrimonial Case

No. 833/2010 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna

whereby the prayer of the petitioner to conduct DNA Test of the

female child and the petitioner to ascertain as to whether the

petitioner is the biological father of the child, has been rejected.

3. The brief fact giving rise to the present petition is

that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the

respondent as per Hindu rites on 05.06.1987. The petitioner was

in Indian Army from where he retired from his service on

01.01.2005. The petitioner sent his brother to the respondent's

maternal home, where she had been residing at the time of

petitioner's retirement, to bring her back to her matrimonial

home but the respondent refused to return. The petitioner made

several efforts to bring his wife back but the same went in vain.

On 29.06.2007, the respondent/wife filed a Complaint Case No. Patna High Court C.Misc. No.568 of 2018 dt. 09-01-2023

715-C/2007 in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class,

Biharsharif, Nalanda against the petitioner and his relatives

including one Vibha Devi with whom, the respondent claims,

the petitioner performed second marriage, for the offence

punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 379, 307/34 of the IPC.

4. The petitioner preferred anticipatory bail

application before this Court bearing Cr. Misc. No.37124/2008,

in which, the petitioner was granted privilege of provisional bail

on his undertaking that he was ready and willing to resume

matrimonial relations with his wife/respondent. The provisional

bail was to be confirmed in case his wife returned to the

matrimonial home with the settlement of dispute or if the wife

was found to be unreasonable. Order dated 23.06.2009 passed in

Cr. Misc. No. 37124/2008 has been annexed as Annexure-1 to

this petition.

5. On 15.12.2009, the petitioner filed an application

in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Biharshaif, Nalanda

for confirmation of his provisional bail. In his petition, the

petitioner has stated that he has always shown willingness to

take Pushpa Devi i.e., respondent/wife to her matrimonial home

but she is not willing to go to her matrimonial home. On several

dates, the petitioner attempted to take his wife back to her Patna High Court C.Misc. No.568 of 2018 dt. 09-01-2023

matrimonial home but she did not accompany the petitioner. The

provisional bail granted to the petitioner was confirmed by the

learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Biharsharif, Nalanda vide

order dated 15.12.2009.

6. In 2010 i.e., 18.12.2010, the petitioner filed a

Matrimonial Case No. 833/2010 before the Principal Judge,

Family Court, Patna under Section 13(1), (ia), (ib) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage stating therein

that his wife had been leading an adulterous life which would be

evident by birth of a female child given by respondent at the

time when the petitioner had no access to his wife. He also

pleaded that no child was born out of wedlock between him and

the respondent and the medical examinations of the petitioner

has led to the conclusion that the petitioner was incapable of

procreation.

7. On 13.10.2011, respondent/wife filed her written

statement in which she has claimed that female child, namely,

Khushi Kumari was born out of her relation with the petitioner

and she has been living with her parents because her husband

i.e., the petitioner has married another lady, namely, Vibha Devi.

She denied the petitioner's allegation that her behaviour towards

him was not cordial. On 24.04.2016, the petitioner filed an Patna High Court C.Misc. No.568 of 2018 dt. 09-01-2023

application in Divorce Case seeking a direction from the Family

Court for conducting DNA Test of the petitioner along with

respondent's female child. On 26.05.2016, a reply was filed by

the respondent/wife to the aforesaid petition for rejecting the

petitioner's prayer of DNA Test.

8. Mr. Sri Ram Krishna, learned counsel for the

petitioner argued that in January 2005, the petitioner returned to

his native place after retirement from the Indian Army but to his

dismay, the petitioner found that the respondent/wife was not at

her matrimonial home and despite several efforts, the

respondent did not come to reside with the petitioner. Suddenly,

in February 2006, the petitioner and his parents were informed

that the respondent had given birth to a girl child. This

information struck the petitioner and his family with surprise

because since 1987 the petitioner and the respondent had been

trying to beget a child but with no success. In fact, the

quarrelsome nature of the respondent was one of the deterring

factors in the petitioner and the respondent in not sharing an

amicable relationship. Moreso, the type of duty that the

petitioner was performing in the armed forces, particularly, in

the light of the fact that the petitioner was posted at very high

altitudes had led to the onslaught of impotency in the petitioner Patna High Court C.Misc. No.568 of 2018 dt. 09-01-2023

and then a child being born to the respondent was indeed a

surprise to the petitioner. It was, in this light, that the petitioner

got himself medically examined wherein as per the

ultrasonography report dated 09.11.2006 (page 91 of the brief),

it was concluded as "early varicocele on the left" i.e., lack of

semen resulting in impotency. Therefore, it is submitted that the

medical examination of the petitioner indicating impotency

cannot be categorised as an after thought, because the petitioner

was well aware about his disability to procreate and a child

when born to the respondent, the petitioner got himself

examined. This was much prior to the Complaint Case No. 715-

C/2007 filed by the respondent against the petitioner and his

family members before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,

Biharsharif, Nalanda. Further, medical report dated 31.05.2016

(at page 89) and medical report dated 24.01.2012 (internal page

28 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner) will

further substantiate the case of the petitioner. In both reports

mentioned above, no sperm has been seen i.e., 'NIL sperm

counts' which corroborates with the 2006 medical report.

9. Learned counsel further submits that the ground

reality in the rural-cum-semi-urban areas where the petitioner

and the respondent are situated cannot be lost sight of. The first Patna High Court C.Misc. No.568 of 2018 dt. 09-01-2023

thing that anyone would do is to hide a fact like impotency. No

person would as a first choice want to get himself anointed as

impotent. It is only due to some uncontrollable, intolerable

circumstances that one would come out in public as 'impotent'.

That the very coming to the terms with the fact that one is

'impotent' can be very depressing for the person suffering it. In

our society even today, the inability of a man to be able to

procreate is very much looked down upon and therefore, it is

submitted that the contention of the respondent that the ground

of impotency as raised by the petitioner is an after thought

deserves to be rejected. Moreso, in the light of 2006 medical

report as mentioned above.

10. Leaned counsel relies upon the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dipanvita Roy v.

Ronobroto Roy reported in (2015) 1 SCC 365 and submits that

it is fairly well settled that the DNA Test cannot be directed in

routine but only in deserving cases. However, the Courts have

held that the DNA tests can also be directed for in a matrimonial

dispute as well. What is required to be seen is a prima facie case

and not a proven case. The case in hand does indicate a prima

facie case taking into consideration the conduct of the

respondent herein; (1) never residing with the husband, (2) the Patna High Court C.Misc. No.568 of 2018 dt. 09-01-2023

medical report of 2006, (3) suddenly disclosing the birth of a

girl child and (4) subsequently, filing complaint case against the

petitioner. In fact, the allegation of the respondent that the

petitioner performed second marriage with one Vibha Devi is

further negated and in fact substantiates the case of impotency

of the petitioner as no child has been born out of the wedlock

and the marriage if at all, at best is invalid and is not an issue in

the instant case.

11. The 2012, 2016 medical reports of the petitioner

is only in furtherance to the 2006 medical report as the

petitioner was getting himself examined periodically to be ruled

out any contrary allegation. The attention of this Court has been

drawn to the orders dated 23.03.2013, 07.06.2013, 21.06.2013

and 24.07.2013 passed in Complaint Case No. 715-C/2007

(page 53-56 of the brief) wherein it has been noted that in spite

of the fact that the respondent agreed to the DNA Test of the

child and the petitioner herein, yet she was running shy of it and

evading the same. Even in deposition in Matrimonial Case No.

833/2010 (page 76-79 of the brief), the respondent wife

accepted that she had been directed for DNA Test in Complaint

Case No. 715-C/2007 but she did not go for the same.

12. Leaned counsel next submits that it would be Patna High Court C.Misc. No.568 of 2018 dt. 09-01-2023

evident from perusal of the order dated 17.09.2014 passed in

Miscellaneous Case No. 18/11 by the learned Family Court,

Biharsharif, Nalanda that the learned court below declined to

enhance maintenance amount payable to the so called daughter,

Khushi Kumari on the ground that the respondent/wife was

running shy of getting the DNA Test conducted of the so called

daughter in spite of previous orders passed by the learned court.

A perusal of the order dated 05.05.2014 in the said

Miscellaneous Case also shows that while the maintenance

amount of the respondent/wife was further enhanced to Rs.

1500/- per month, the maintenance amount payable towards the

so called daughter, Khushi Kumari remained at Rs. 500/- per

month. ( page 10-13 and page 25-27 of the petitioner's

supplementary affidavit).

13. That in the light of what has been stated above

and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a prima

facie case for DNA Test has been made out particularly keeping

in mind the conduct of the respondent/wife. The fact that the

respondent/wife never resided with the petitioner, yet there was

a child as late as in the year 2005/2006. The fact that the

petitioner has ever been ready to undergo the DNA Test and the

respondent has been running shy from it in spite of agreeing to Patna High Court C.Misc. No.568 of 2018 dt. 09-01-2023

send the child for the same, the Court observed as stated above

leave several questions for the respondent/wife to answer. It is

submitted that the petitioner's prayer for DNA Test cannot be

rejected on the ground that the instant case is one of the routine

matrimonial disputes simpliciter. It is submitted that this dispute

has also had ramifications on the petitioner's service record as

well as with respect to pension etc., as usually such things are

withheld in cases of disputes. Latsly, it is submitted that in a

situation like instant one, where a child has been thrust upon

the petitioner in spite of his impotency, the DNA Test is the

most scientifically precise method to determine the paternity of

the child and to balance the interests of the parties.

14. Per contra, Ms. Surya Nilambari, learned Amicus

Curiae argues that the respondent/wife has stated in her written

statement filed in a Divorce Case (Anneuxre-5 Page 45) and in

her deposition (Annexure-12/Page 76) that the female child

Khushi Kumari was born of the matrimonial relations between

the petitioner and the respondent on 19.12.2005. It was in

December 2005 itself, the respondent came to her paternal home

from matrimonial home, the petitioner got married again to one

Vibha Devi which is why the respondent was not residing in her

matrimonial home (at the time of filing of the case and WS). Patna High Court C.Misc. No.568 of 2018 dt. 09-01-2023

This marriage was entered into before the filing of the complaint

case itself by the respondent in the year 2007. As proof of his

impotency, the petitioner has brought on record certain

documents which are as follows:-

1. By Prof. V.K. Srivastava dated 31.05.2016 (Annexure 15/ page 88)

2. Report dated 31.05.2016 by Anand Diagnostic , Page 89.

3. Ultrasonography report dated 31.05.2016 by Dr. Mamta Singh, Page-90.

4. Ultrasonography report dated 09.11.2006 by Dr. P.K. Jaiswal, Page-91.

5. Medical report by Christian Medical College, Vellore, dated 24.01.2012 (Annexure 19/Pg. 28, Supplementary affidavit)

15. She next submits that before referring to the

reliability of these documents produced by the petitioner before

this Court, it would be useful to highlight the averments made

by the petitioner with regard to his impotency, in his application

for divorce, as well as in his deposition before the Family Court

in the divorce case and in a petition filed before this Court. It

has been stated by the petitioner that no child was born of the

marriage between him and the respondent despite conjugal

relations between the two, which led to medical examinations

revealing that the petitioner was incapable of procreation Patna High Court C.Misc. No.568 of 2018 dt. 09-01-2023

(relevant paragraphs are para 5/page 3 of the main petition;

para 7/pg. 31 of the divorce petition; Para-1/Pg 61 of his

deposition in the divorce case). The petitioner got exhibited Dr.

Pravin Kumar Jayswal's report, the authenticity of which report

has been challenged by the respondent/wife.

16. Learned Amicus Curiae further submits that it is

the petitioner's case that he had been medically examined much

prior to 2005, in course of leading conjugal life with the

respondent. However, none of the documents on record relates

to the period between 1987-2005, the documents being recent,

of the years 2006, 2012, 2016 i.e., after filing of the divorce,

save the one dated 2006. The report of Dr. P.K. Jayswal, referred

to in the petitioner's deposition (marked as Ext-1), was prepared

on 09.11.2006, after the petitioner's claim to have learnt about

the birth of the child. Most important, the report is an

ultrasonography report, lacking the necessary details pertaining

to the petitioner's ability to procreate. For instance, the said

report does not contain the spermatozoa count which is the

relevant criterion for determining the ability to procreate. From

a reading of this report, it cannot be said authoritatively that the

petitioner is impotent. The genuineness of the report has been

disputed by the respondent which would be evident from para-8 Patna High Court C.Misc. No.568 of 2018 dt. 09-01-2023

of the reply filed by the respondent (Annexure 14/Pgs 86-87)

opposing the prayer for DNA Test. Accordingly, this document

cannot be taken as sacrosanct.

17. Another report i.e., by Anand Diagnostic, at page

89 of the brief, on "examination of seminal fluid", shows that

the spermatozoa count of the patient is nil, indicating impotence

of the person examined, namely, Bipin Kumar Singh. However,

this report is dated 31.05.2016 demonstrating that it was

prepared/obtained only after filing of the prayer in the divorce

case for holding DNA Test which was made on 24.04.2016

(Annexure 13/Pgs 80-85).

18. With regard to report of CMC Vellore dated 2012

(Annexure 19/Supplementary Affidavit by the petitioner), it is

interesting to note that it bears the name of one Vibha Devi,

along with the name of the petitioner. The respondent has

alleged throughout, both in the criminal case lodged by her

against the petitioner as well as in her written statement in the

matrimonial case, that the petitioner got married to one Vibha

Devi, despite the subsistence of marriage between her and the

petitioner. This report by CMC, Vellore brought on record by the

petitioner himself seems to prima facie vindicate the

respondent's allegation that the petitioner has entered into Patna High Court C.Misc. No.568 of 2018 dt. 09-01-2023

another matrimonial alliance with said Vibha Devi.

19. Based upon the aforesaid, it is submitted that the

petitioner has not offered any solid, reliable proof of impotence

from which any prima facie satisfaction could be derived of his

assertion.

20. Learned Amicus Curiae also submits that

although the petitioner claims to have learnt regarding birth of

the female child in February, 2006, he took no steps

immediately thereafter to sever connections with the respondent

who, according to the petitioner, was neither willing to live with

him nor had been faithful to him. The respondent lodged a

complaint case against the petitioner in 2007 for offence under

Section 498A IPC, in which, he was finally convicted. In course

of this case, the petitioner expressed his desire to continue the

matrimonial relations with the respondent, notwithstanding her

alleged adulterous behaviors. The petitioner filed a petition for

confirmation of provisional bail (Annexure 2/Pg 24) in which he

stated that he had always been willing to live with his wife who

was not co-operating in the resumption of a happy married life.

The petitioner claims in his divorce petition that after his

retirement from the Army when he returned to his village, his

wife was not at her matrimonial home but was living with her Patna High Court C.Misc. No.568 of 2018 dt. 09-01-2023

parents. The petitioner, in an attempt to persuade her to come

back, sent his brother in January 2005 and then made several

attempts to bring back his wife. The petitioner has not disclosed

the nature of attempts made by him.

21. The divorce case was filed by the petitioner only

after lodging of the criminal case by the respondent and it has

been stated by the petitioner that despite the best of his efforts,

the respondent showed no willingness to resume harmonious

life with the petitioner. The respondent/wife, on the other hand,

claims that in view of the second marriage entered into by the

petitioner with one Vibha Devi, sometime in early 2006, she has

been residing with her parents. The petition for holding of the

DNA test was filed by the petitioner in the family Court on

24.04.2016 after the examination of the witnesses including the

petitioner.

22. She next submits that the legal principles

involved in matters wherein the courts are called upon to

consider the desirability and propriety of directing reluctant

parties to submit to medical examination must be applied in the

peculiar factual context of each case. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court has laid down certain parameters within which

applications for holding DNA Test or other medical tests in Patna High Court C.Misc. No.568 of 2018 dt. 09-01-2023

matrimonial disputes may be decided.

23. She relies upon the following judgments:-

1. 2003 (4) SCC 493 (Sharda v. Dharmpal)

2. 1993 (3) SCC 418 (Goutum Kundu v. State of Bengal) (3) 2010 (8) SCC 633 (Bhabhani P. Jena v.

Convenor Secretary, Orissa Women Commission, (4) 2015 (1) SCC 365 (Dipanwita Roy v.

Ronobroto Roy).

24. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

have gone through the materials on record. As per the case of

the parties, the marriage was solemnized on 05.06.1987. The

petitioner retired from Indian Army on 01.01.2005 and the

female child was born on 19.12.2005. The petitioner has

pleaded that he had no contact with his wife at the time she

conceived i.e., in 2005 but also claims that he is incapable of

fathering a child and had been so in the entire course of

marriage. In support of this argument, the petitioner has placed

first medical document dated 09.11.2006 which is

Ultrasongraphy report and from perusal of the same, it appears

that both testes are normal in size, both epididymis are normal

in size and appearance, gross hydrocele is seen on either side

and it concludes with the finding of "early varicocele on the

left".

25. Admittedly, the ultrasonography report is of the Patna High Court C.Misc. No.568 of 2018 dt. 09-01-2023

year 2006 i.e., after birth of the girl child in December 2005.

The petitioner had retired in January 2005 and returned back to

his home. The Divorce Petition was filed much after filing of

the Complaint Case by the respondent in which she had made

one Vibha Devi as an accused claiming that the petitioner

performed marriage with the said Vibha Devi sometime in the

year 2006. The petitioner in his divorce petition filed on

18.12.2010 has claimed that the respondent had been leading an

adulterous life and gave birth to a female child at the time the

petitioner had no access to his wife. He has also pleaded that the

medical examination of the petitioner has led to the conclusion

that the petitioner was incapable of procreation. The wife in her

written statement has denied this allegation and has stated that

the female child, Khushi Kumari was born out of her

relationship with the petitioner and she has been living with her

parents because her husband i.e., the petitioner has married

another lady, namely, Vibha Devi sometime in early 2006.

26. The claim of the respondent that the petitioner

performed second marriage with one Vibha Devi has not been

specifically denied by the petitioner and it has been argued by

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that impotency of

the petitioner is further substantiated by the fact that no child Patna High Court C.Misc. No.568 of 2018 dt. 09-01-2023

has been born out of the wedlock/marriage of the petitioner with

Vibha Devi.

27. From perusal of the medical report of CMC,

Vellore dated 24.01.2012 (Annexure-19 of the Supplementary

Affidavit by the petitioner), it appears that Vibha Devi along

with the petitioner were examined with diagnosis of primary

infertility. The report dated 31.05.2016 of Anand Diagnostic

produced by the petitioner shows that spermatozoa count of the

patient was nil. The said report has been prepared only after

filing of the prayer in the divorce case for holding DNA Test

filed on 24.04.2016.

28. Further, it also appears from the material on

record that the petitioner for the first time learnt about the birth

of the female child in February 2006. He took no steps

immediately thereafter to sever connections with the respondent.

For the first time, respondent lodged a complaint against the

petitioner in 2007. In course of this case, the petitioner

expressed his desire to continue the matrimonial relations with

the respondent and in a petition for confirmation of provisional

bail, the petitioner has stated that he had always been willing to

live with his wife who was not co-operating him in the

resumption of a happy married life. This conduct of the Patna High Court C.Misc. No.568 of 2018 dt. 09-01-2023

petitioner appears to be inconsistent inasmuch as after coming

to know about the adulterous behaviour of the wife at least in

the year 2006, the petitioner was still ready to resume

matrimonial relationship with his wife. This Court is of the

impression that after performance of second marriage with one

Vibha Devi sometime in the year 2006, an acrimony developed

between the husband and the wife which led to filing of

complaint case by the wife against the petitioner and one Vibha

Devi with whom the petitioner allegedly performed second

marriage. The medical report of petitioner as well as Vibha Devi

produced by the petitioner himself, prima facie, substantiates

this allegation. The petitioner initially tried to settle the matter

with the respondent but after having not succeeded in the same,

he filed the divorce suit on the ground of adultery/cruelty as

well as desertion.

29. The first medical report relied upon by the

petitioner which was prepared on 09.11.2006 i.e.,

approximately, one year after the birth of the female child. This

report can be said to be relevant for the purpose of issue raised

by the petitioner regarding DNA Test. The other two reports are

of later in time i.e., of 2012 and 2016 which, in my opinion, are

not very important for the purpose of deciding the present issue Patna High Court C.Misc. No.568 of 2018 dt. 09-01-2023

inasmuch as the risk of impotency increases with age. It is four-

fold higher in men in their 60s compared with those in their 40s

according to a study published in the journal of Urology

(2000;163;460-463){Medical Editor: Charles Patrick Davis,

MD, PhD}.

30. The report dated 09.11.2006 is Ultrasonography

report which shows "early varicocele on the left". The said

report does not contain spermatozoa count. The report does not

show that it is second grade or third grade varicocele. 8 th Edition

of D.C. Dutta's Text Book of Gynecology has dealt with the

common cause of male infertility and one of them is thermal

factor which describes that "scrotal temperature is raised in

conditions such is varicocele. Varicocele probably interferes

with cooling mechanism or increases catecholamine

concentration. However, no definite association between

varicoceles and infertility has been established". Accordingly,

the report of 2006 does not, prima facie, establish the claim of

the petitioner for DNA Test.

31. Now, let me examine the contention of the

petitioner that the respondent gave birth to a female child at the

time when the petitioner had no access to his wife. The

petitioner's witness who is his father, Ram Briksh Singh Patna High Court C.Misc. No.568 of 2018 dt. 09-01-2023

deposed in the said divorce suit and in his cross-examination

recorded on 03.07.2014, he has stated that Pushpa Devi was his

daughter-in-law and used to come and go from matrimonial

home but after 2005, she did never come.

32. Admittedly, the child was born in 2005 and from

the statement of the petitioner's witness, it prima facie, appears

that in 2005 and prior thereto, the petitioner had access to his

wife/respondent. The medical report of CMC, Vellore submitted

by the petitioner regarding infertility records the age of the

petitioner as on 24th January, 2012 as 36 years. According to this

document, the petitioner was about 11 years old in 1987 when

the marriage of the petitioner was performed with the

respondent. The age of the respondent must have been around 9

to 10 years or may be less than that. Meaning thereby, this

marriage was solemnized at the time both were minors and that

may be the reason that the birth of the female child was delayed

i.e., after both the parties attained adulthood. Even if taking into

consideration the age of the petitioner disclosed in this petition

at the time of filing it in the High Court as 46 years in 2018, the

age of the petitioner in 1987 comes to 16 years and the

respondent must be 2-3 years below 15 years. Still it shows that

both the parties were minors and this may be the reason that the Patna High Court C.Misc. No.568 of 2018 dt. 09-01-2023

first child was born out of wedlock in 2005.

33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in

(1993)3 SCC 418 has formulated the following points:-

(1) that courts in India cannot order blood test as a matter of course;

(2) wherever applications are made for such prayers in order to have roving inquiry, the prayer for blood test cannot be entertained.

(3) There must be a strong prima facie case in that the husband must establish non-access in order to dispel the presumption arising under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.

(4) The court must carefully examine as to what would be the consequence of ordering the blood test; whether it will have the effect of branding a child as a bastard and the mother as an unchaste woman.

(5) No one can be compelled to give sample of blood for analysis.

34. In the case of Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa

State Commission for Women reported in (2010) 8 SCC 633,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Courts in India

cannot order blood test as a matter of course and such prayer

cannot be granted to have roving inquiry. There must be strong

prima facie case and the Court must carefully examine as to

what would be the consequence of ordering the blood test. The

Court should exercise such power if the application has strong

prima facie case and there is sufficient material before the Patna High Court C.Misc. No.568 of 2018 dt. 09-01-2023

Court.

35. In view of the discussions held hereinabove on

the factual background and the law and taking into

consideration the conduct of the petitioner of filing petition for

DNA Test six years after filing of divorce petition, in my

opinion, the petitioner has failed to make out a strong prima

facie case for passing any order by this Court for DNA Test. The

Court is of the opinion that such prayer cannot be allowed for

collecting evidence and to have roving inquiry upon the

allegation made by the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the

divorce suit for dissolution of marriage not only on the ground

of adultery but also tried to make out a case of cruelty and

desertion against the respondent. It would, thus, appear that the

petitioner is taking chance for collecting evidence after the

closure of his evidence in the suit in support of ground of

adultery. This, in my opinion, is not permissible.

36. The acceptance, in principle, of the usefulness of

DNA Test as proof of infidelity notwithstanding, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has cautioned against the holding of such tests

as a matter of course that too without the consent of the parties.

37. As has been discussed, the petitioner has not

offered any credible, satisfactory proof of impotence to make Patna High Court C.Misc. No.568 of 2018 dt. 09-01-2023

out prima facie case of his claim for DNA Test and the wife has

also not given her consent. Consequently, I have no difficulty in

confirming the order impugned dated 15.02.2017 passed in

Matrimonial Case No. 833/2010 by the Principal Judge, Family

Court, Patna whereby the prayer of the petitioner to conduct

DNA Test of the female child and the petitioner has been

rejected.

38. In the result, this application stands dismissed.

39. Before parting with the judgment, I must

appreciate the sincerity of learned Amicus Curiae who extended

valuable assistance to this Court. For the valuable services

rendered by her to this Hon'ble Court, I direct the Secretary,

Patna High Court Legal Services Committee to pay her, namely,

Ms. Surya Nilambari a token amount of Rs. 11,000/- (Eleven

Thousand) within a period of one month from the

receipt/production of a copy of this judgment/order.

                                                                 (Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
     perwez
AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                22.11.2022
Uploading Date          09/01/2023
Transmission Date       09/01/2023