- (1.) AMAR Saran, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate. ). By means of this application the applicant has challenged the order dated 13. 12. 2007 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application of the applicant for get ting the DNA test of his son Ishan conducted.
(2.) IT was mentioned in the application that on 1. 3. 2004 the opposite party No. 1 had gone with her brother to her maternal home in Kanpur Nagar, then she became pregnant. She returned on 13. 3. 2004 at the residence of the husband and informed that she was pregnant and it did not appear to the applicant and the child was born from the union of the applicant with opposite party No. 1. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the applicant that opposite party No. 1 had herself shown willingness to get the DNA test conducted, but she was pleading for interim maintenance. It is not disputed that the applicant and oppo site party Ho. 1 were married. Learned Trial Judge has observed that on the mere suspicion that the child was not born from the union of the parties, the DNA test could not be conducted and for this purpose he has relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Heera Singh v. State, 2005 ACJ 1486, where the request for DNA test was rejected because there was no prima facie evidence that the proof of pater nity was doubtful.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant submits that the said authority was distinguishable because in that case there was no concession by opposite party to get the DNA test conducted. Eed not go into this question as this case can be decided on different points.;