The petitioner took a defence disputing the paternity of the child. The petitioner and the respondent were sent for DNA test to Rajeev Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology. Accordingly, Exhibit P-1 DNA typing report was obtained. The result is against the petitioner. Exhibit P-1 is now under challenge. The plea of the petitioner is that Exhibit P-1 was manipulated by the 1st respondent with the connivance of an employee in the laboratory. The allegation is denied by the 1st respondent. Therefore, without taking evidence, it is not possible to decide such dispute in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Petitioner is not entitled to the first relief. If the petitioner is serious with his allegation he has to establish the same before the court below which is empowered to set aside the same in the event the petitioner could establish his allegation of manipulation.Therefore, on a mere plea of non-access and plea of manipulation in Exhibit P1, Exhibit P1 report can not be interfered and the 1st respondent cannot be asked to go for a second test. Incidentally, I have gone through the photograph of the petitioner and the child contained in page No. 7 of Exhibit P1. The child appears to be a miniature of the petitioner. In the above circumstances, I find that it would be too harsh to ask the 1st respondent to undergo a further DNA test on a non established plea of manipulation. Therefore, 2nd relief is also not allowable. I find lack of banafides in this petition.
Kerala High Court
Shibu M.Daniel vs Diana T.George
THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2012
OP(Crl.).No. 3935 of 2011 (Q)
Citation: 2012CriLJ4276, ILR2012(3)Kerala172,
2012 (2) KHC 619, 2012(3)KLT706
https://www.lawweb.in/2016/04/when-court-should-not-order-second-dna.html
