TITLE: X versus Y
Decided on 26/05/2023
2023/RJJD/016587
Coram: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Facts of the case:
The parties got married in 2010 and the child was born in 2018. The wife had left her husband’s house in 2019. Now, the husband has filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce on the grounds of cruelty. After the release of the Deoxyribonucleic Acid (‘DNA’) Paternity Test Report which revealed that the husband is not the father of the child, he wanted to amend the application, claiming it to be the development in the case before the Family Court. But it was rejected by the Family Court. Thus, the husband filed the present petition.
During the pendency of the divorce application, the petitioner (husband) preferred an application therein, under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, ‘CPC’) seeking to add para nos. 12A and 12B as well as ground A1 in the pleading of the application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955, on the basis of the Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Paternity Test Report dated 11.09.2019 (as annexed with the said application), of the child (son), while claiming the same to be a subsequent development in the case before the learned Family Court.
Judgement:
This Court has to keep into paramount consideration the mental and physical health of a child and the aspects adversely affecting it.
This case has to be seen through the prism of the child and not through the prism of the cantankerously fighting parents. This Court is of the firm opinion that the child cannot be used as a pawn in a divorce litigation, where either of the parents want to get rid of the spouse, while sacrificing the crucial rights of the child to a dignified parenthood, which shall not only cause an unfathomable misery upon the rights of the child, but also create a permanent dent in his existence/Psyche.
This Court also finds that the DNA Test is invading upon the rights of a child, which may range from affecting his property rights, right to lead a dignified life, right to privacy and right to have the confidence and happiness of being showered with love and affection by both parents.
Thus, in light of the above observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by: Mahima Saini
