{"id":2133,"date":"2024-07-22T16:07:16","date_gmt":"2024-07-22T10:37:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=2133"},"modified":"2024-07-24T13:34:23","modified_gmt":"2024-07-24T08:04:23","slug":"allahabad-hc-refuses-relief-to-man-who-secretly-collected-daughters-blood-sample-for-dna-test","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/allahabad-hc-refuses-relief-to-man-who-secretly-collected-daughters-blood-sample-for-dna-test\/","title":{"rendered":"Allahabad HC refuses relief to man who secretly collected daughter\u2019s blood sample for DNA test"},"content":{"rendered":"

Sachin Agarwal\u00a0 \u00a0[<\/strong> Applicant] Vs. <\/strong>State Of U.P And Another\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>[ Opposite Party]<\/h1>\n

APPLICATION U\/S 482 No. – 28298 of 2021<\/p>\n

(Delivered by Hon’ble Prashant Kumar,J.<\/strong>)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> The instant application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing of the order dated 03.11.2021 passed by Additional Civil Judge\/Family Court, District Mathura, in case no. 901 of 2019 (Smt. Mamata Vs. Sachin) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/u><\/strong> Whether a parent can secretively collect child\u2019s blood sample for DNA test ?<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for petitioner:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is matrimonial<\/a> dispute between the parties. It is alleged that earlier the opposite party no.2 was married to one Sunil Kumar. After the disappearance of Sunil Kumar for many years, the opposite party no.2 re-married the present applicant and out of their wedlock two children were born. Thereafter there was some matrimonial discord and hence the opposite party no.2 had filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance<\/a>. In the pending proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., applicant had filed an application stating therein that the children are not of his and hence there was no question of paying any maintenance. On the request of opposite party no.2, to ascertain the parentage sought for a DNA test, the trial Court vide order dated 03.11.2021 ordered for DNA test.<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Sri Rajesh Rai, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that the marriage of opposite party no.2 and the applicant was solemnized in the month of May, 2007. Out of the wedlock two children were born, in the birth certificates of the children, the name of the applicant has been recorded as father of the children. In fact the entire expenses of the delivery of the children was borne by the applicant. Even in the school the name of the father of the children is recorded as Sachin Agarwal (present applicant). He further submits that thereafter the name of the father of the children was changed in connivance of the applicant and the headmistress of the school, for which, the opposite party no.2 has 2 of 9 lodged an FIR against the applicant and others.<\/p>\n

Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court disposed of the present application and held that, \u201cIn this case though the applicant is refusing the maintenance and the paternity of the children, however, when the court ordered for the DNA test, the applicant has assailed that order in this application. The applicant cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same time. He cannot deny the paternity of the children and at the same time he refuses to undergo the DNA test. If he is doubting the paternity the only way to prove his 8 of 9 case is by the DNA testing. Moreover, the applicant cannot equate the DNA test with the other tests like Narco test which needs a prior consent. Explanation 53 of Cr.P.C. now makes it abundantly clear \u201cexamination\u201d would include DNA parentage.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Sachin Agarwal\u00a0 \u00a0[ Applicant] Vs. State Of U.P And Another\u00a0\u00a0 [ Opposite Party] APPLICATION U\/S 482 No. – 28298 of 2021 (Delivered by Hon’ble Prashant Kumar,J.)   Facts: The instant application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing of the order dated 03.11.2021 passed by Additional Civil Judge\/Family […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2135,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2133","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2133","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2133"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2133\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2147,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2133\/revisions\/2147"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2135"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2133"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2133"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2133"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}