IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE R.P.F.C.NO.164 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Lakshmidevi W/o. Darshan, Aged about 38 years, R/at Sree Veerabhadreshwara Nilaya, Kyathasandra, Girinagara 1st main road, Tumkur-572 103.
2. Kum.Supriya D/o. Darshan, Aged about 8½ years, Represented by natural guardian Mother Lakshmidevi N, R/at Sree Veerabhadreshwara Nilaya, Kyathasandra, Girinagar 1st Main Road, Tumkur-572 103.
(By Sri.V.B.Siddaramaiah, Advocate) AND:
Sri. Darshan S/o B.D. Kantharaju, Aged about 38 years, R/at Balekoppulu, Karjuhalli Post, Alur Taluk, Hassan District-573 213.
…Petitioners … Respondent (By Sri.N.P. Kallesh Gowda, Advocate) This RPFC is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act., against the order dated 29.08.2017 passed in C.Mis.No.14/2014 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru, dismissing the petition filed under Section 125 of CR.P.C for maintenance.
This RPFC coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of both the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 29.08.2017 passed by the trial Court by which the trial Court has rejected the petition preferred by the petitioners under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent took place on 23.04.2007. It is the case of the petitioner that from the wedlock, a child namely, Supriya, petitioner No.2 was born on 01.01.2009. However, the petitioner was thrown out of the matrimonial home and thereupon, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru. The Family Court, by the impugned order dated 29.08.2017, has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner inter-alia on the ground that the petitioner have failed to prove that petitioner No.2 is the child of respondent and that petitioner No.1 had sufficient means to maintain herself. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No.1 is unemployed and merely from the fact that she had paid the amount of loan taken by the respondent, it cannot be inferred that she had sufficient means to maintain herself. It is further submitted that in order to ascertain the paternity of petitioner No.2, the Family Court ought to have conducted the DNA Test and the petitioners are prepared to undergo DNA Test to ascertain the paternity of petitioner No.2.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the respondent submits that he is also ready and willing to undergo DNA test to ascertain the paternity of petitioner No.2.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the DNA test is normally resorted to ascertain the paternity of a child. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is a dispute with regard to the paternity of the child. Therefore, in order to effectively adjudicate the dispute between the parties, I deem it proper to quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the trial Court to direct the parties to undergo DNA test and based on the Report of the aforesaid test, decide the matter afresh in accordance with law by a speaking order by taking into account the materials available on record.
Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out by the trial Court within a period of four months from today.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A. No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-