P. Venkatarama Reddi, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The appellants herein filed a petition before the Family Court, Cuttack describing it as a petition under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. The prayers made therein are as follows : (a) To declare that late Samuel Maharana nick named as Gulu is the father of the minor child Pupun alias Pallav Pratik Maharana and not Kanhu Ch. Pattnaik the respondent No. 2 and the birth certificate obtained by respondent No. 1 is not valid as the same is based on false information. Only the DNA finger print will prove the truth of the respondent No.1. (b) To appoint the petitioners as guardians of the person of the said minor child. (c) To direct the respondents to deliver the custody of the child to the petitioners within such period as deemed fit by the Honble Court.
(3.) According to the petitioners, their son, named Samuel Maharana developed intimacy with the first respondent- Mina Mohanty and both of them lived together in the Departmental Quarter allotted to Samuel Maharana. On account of their cohabitation, a male child was born to them on 25th January, 1991. Samuel Maharana and Respondent No.1 named the child as Pallav Pratik Maharana alias Pupun. However, the first respondent got the birth certificate issued by the hospital showing the childs name as Partha Sarathi Patnaik and Kanhu Charan Patnaik as his father. It is alleged that the first respondent - Mina Mohanty, though married to the second respondent-Kanhu Charan Patnaik, they were living separately from 1987. Samuel Maharana died on 7th November, 1994 under mysterious circumstances. After the death of Samuel, the 2nd respondent executed a document accepting that Pupun was born through Samuel and disclaiming his parentage. After some time, the custody of the child was entrusted to the appellants and Respondent No.1 was frequently visiting the house of the appellants to see the child. On one such occasion i.e., 1st April, 1995, the first respondent sent one of her relations to bring the child to her place with a promise to send him back on the next day. From then onwards, the child was kept out of the reach of the appellants. A notice was sent by registered post on 22nd September, 1995 to send back the child. However, it was returned undelivered. Hence the petition was filed as aforesaid in the Family Court.;