S THANGAVELU Vs. S KANNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned subordinate Judge, Namakkal dated 7-4-2003 made in I. A. No. 38 of 2002 in HMOP no. 140 of 2002, which was filed under S. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for ordering dna Test by sending the petitioner, the respondent and her minor son Sangeeth Prem to the Center for Cellular Microbiology, hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh State.

(2.) THE petitioner-husband has filed hmop No. 140 of 2002, praying for a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of him with the respondent, which was solemnised on 28-10-1984 at Tiruchengode. According to the petitioner, the said petition was filed as early as on 9-6-1998. Pending the said hmop the petitioner has filed I. A. No. 38 of 2002 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence act and Section 151 CPC to order for deoxybo Nucleic Acid Test (in short "dna test" ). In the affidavit filed in support of the said application it is stated that the marriage with the respondent was not consummated and he had no occasion to cohabit with the respondent from the date of marriage and the respondent was not conceived through him. In other words, according to the petitioner, the respondent's minor son sangeeth Prem is not his offspring and progeny. In order to prove the fact that the boy is not his offspring, he is willing to submit himself for DNA Test, to prove the genetic factor. He also undertakes to pay necessary charges for the same. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, she has denied all the averments made by the petitioner. In addition to the same, It is stated that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised in 1984 and the minor son, by name, Sangeeth Prem was born to them in 1988. The above petition was filed only in the year 1998, i. e. , nearly after 14 years of the marriage on the allegation that the son was not born to the petitioner. The long delay itself disproves the case of the petitioner. The petitioner is trying to alienate the joint family properties in order to meet out the expenses for his wayward life. The respondent has already filed a suit for partition in O. S. No. 159 of 1997 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Sankari and the same was transferred to Sub-Court, sankari and re-numbered as O. S. No. 493 of 2002. The present petition is only a desparate attempt to harass the respondent.

(3.) BOTH parties have not let in oral and documentary evidence.