- (1.)THE petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 09. 07. 1995 at Trichy. Heartburns arose between them, broke their nuptial life. On 06. 05. 1997, a female child was born and named as Vyshali. The love lost between them, culminated in filing of F. C. O. P. No. 1981 of 2005 by the respondent on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai, for dissolution of marriage. A male child was born on 28. 08. 2004 and this respondent disclaims paternity of the child. The petitioner filed her counter. Matter came up for enquiry and presently, it is in part-heard stage. The respondent filed I. A. No. 2246 of 2007 under Section 10 of the Family Court Act, 1984 r/w. Order 26 Rule 10a CPC. , praying the Court to pass appropriate orders for DNA test to be conducted on the male child born on 28. 08. 2004.
(2.)IN the affidavit, the respondent has stated that after few years of marriage life, the petitioner used to demand money for promoting her father's business and that petitioner's father also instigated her to make such demand. He borrowed nearly Rs. 4 lakhs and gave it to the petitioner's father to set right his financial crisis and even afterwards, they instigated and compelled him to organise finance, for which, he expressed his inability and hence, the petitioner started quarreling with him everyday and the same became routine affair and in time course, they stopped falling with each other and they were sleeping in separate rooms. 2 (ii ). The respondent has further stated that there was no physical relationship between both the parties from the month of May' 2003 onwards and even thereafter, no cohabitation had taken place between them; that at the time when his mother was seriously ill, he had gone to Salem often to look after his mother and spent considerable time for providing medication, however, she died in the month of March 2004; that by the end of the year 2003, due to constant problems and misunderstandings in the matter of money, the petitioner left the matrimonial home, went to her parents' house and stayed with her parents for nearly about three months and returned back at the end of the third month; and that she pleaded and requested that she would mend her ways and in view of the daughter's welfare, he accepted her request and within three days, she told him that she was pregnant, which was a great shock to him. 2 (iii ). In the affidavit, it is further stated that the respondent was having no physical intimacy with the petitioner from the month of May' 2003 onwards till that date. While so, she delivered a male child on 28. 08. 2004 and that the same is illegitimate child which was born through some other person. Therefore, he filed a petition for custody of his daughter, Vaishali in O. P. No. 2111 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai on the ground that the petitioner was leading an adulterous life, and therefore, it has become essential to establish the paternity of the male child, since the same is the subject matter of both the petitions filed by this respondent and if the DNA test is not ordered, he will be put to irreparable loss and mental agony and hence, DNA test may be directed to be conducted on the male child born on 28. 08. 2004 and the respondent.
(3.)IN the counter filed by the petitioner, inter alia it is alleged that the petition under the provisions mentioned therein is neither maintainable in law nor facts; that allegations are per se defamatory and were invented by the respondent to cover up his mis-deeds and adultery; that the respondent had caused untold cruelty and mental agony to her two children and herself; that the respondent is not living in adulterous life; that the respondent was having illicit intimacy with one Uma Maheswari, wife of Krishnan and leading an immoral life with her; that she also came to know that he is having illicit intimacy with various women; that scrutiny of the oral evidence adduced by the respondent before the trial Court would show that he had illegal connection with the said Uma Maheswari; and that said Uma Maheswari's husband filed O. P. NO. 133 of 2004 before the Sub Court, Vellore, arraying the respondent as second respondent and divorce was granted in favour of the said Uma Maheswari. 3 (ii ). The petitioner has further stated that the respondent's father is running a clinic, by name, Sathosh Infertility Centre at Salem; that she was taken to the said Clinic and artificial insemination was performed by the respondent; that both of them lived separately upto 16. 09. 2005 and in the notice (Ex. P4) only, he has stated that the second child was not born to him; that conducting DNA test on the male child is not warranted; and that by abusing his financial position, he created medical records under the head DNA ID Check Test Results and filed Xerox copy before the Court, while filing the Original Petition. The respondent lived with two children and herself till the first birthday of the second child, i. e. , 28. 08. 2005 and celebrated the birthday with full pleasure and joy. If anything wrong was done to her, during the course of artificial insemination, the respondent and his family members were solely responsible for the illegal acts. Subjecting a tender year child, aged three years, for DNA test is inhuman and it would show the respondent's sadist approach to continue his lust with the said Uma Maheswari. Hence, she prayed that the petition may be dismissed, as it is frivolous and vexatious.