LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

High Court Of Tripura Defines The Conditions For A DNA Test: Nirmal Ghosh Vs Partha Ghosh

Aarushi ,
  18 January 2022       Share Bookmark

Court :
The High Court of Tripura Agartala
Brief :

Citation :
CRP 14 of 2020

Date of judgement:
4th January 2022

Bench:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. Amarnath Goud

Parties:
Petitioners – 1. Shri Nirmal Ch Ghosh
Respondent – 1. Sri Partha Ghosh and Ors

Subject

Paternity tests are taken in India, so as to come to conclusion in cases where the paternity of parent is in question.It was held in the Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal case that we have to see the implications that a blood test for paternity can cause in the life of the child, labelling him/her as a bastard and also the life of the mother, labelling her as unchaste. Thus, any blood test cannot be forced on any party in order to prove paternity.

Legal Provisions

  • Section 112, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – This section states that if a person is born in the duration of a valid marriage or within 280 days after its dissolution, that person will be considered the legitimate child of the concerned couple, unless it is proven that the couple was not physically together during the course of this time.

Overview

  • The petitioner contended that the respondent was not a son of deceased Kshitish Ghosh and under the pretence of certain wills, he was selling all the property of deceased Kshitish Ghosh, which were disputed the trial court.
  • In order to prove that the respondent was not the child of deceased Kshitish Ghosh, the petitioners sought to get a DNA test done, of the respondent.
  • The petitioner pleaded that when the ongoing dispute for the property would be solved, all the property will go into the hands of 3rd party, since the respondent was selling them all, and the petitioners, who was the biological brother of deceased Kshitish Ghosh will be left with nothing.
  • The respondent, in turn, produced his school record, birth certificate and other documents, such as the Ration Card, the Aadhar Card, certificate from the Revenue Department and certificate issued by the magistrate, in order to show that Kshitish Ghosh, was the respondent’s father.
  • The counsel from the respondent side cited the Supreme Court in theGoutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal &Anr. case, where the Apex Court had held that blood samples were not required to prove the authenticity of parental claim.

Issues

  • Whether the will which the respondent showed and with the help of which he was selling the property was genuine?
  • Whether to declare the petitioners as legal heirs of those properties in dispute or not?

Judgement Analysis

  • The High Court held that until and unless there was a suit challenging the birth certificate, school records and other documents produced by the respondent, in order to show that the respondent was not the son of deceased Kshitish Ghosh, the court cannot direct a DNA test to be conducted.
  • Further, the court refused to decide on the concern expressed by the petitioners that the respondentwas selling all the properties in which they hold an interest due to their biological relation with the deceased.
  • The High Court, however, allowed the petitioners to file an application in the concerned court regarding the above matter and directed that the lower court where this case comes up, should decide the outcome of the case regardless of the observations of the High Court.
  • The Court thus refused to indulge in the matter and therefore dismissed the it without affecting any decisions made by the trial court.

Conclusion

A paternity test is only filed in extreme cases of emergency, keeping in mind the outcomes of such a test being conducted.From this case, we see the discretion that is required in delivering any judgement, keeping in mind the societal outcomes and the matter which is presented before the court. Thus, the court has proved the meaning of conclusive proof, which means that a presumption cannot be raised until there is a compulsion.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement

 
"Loved reading this piece by Aarushi?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"



Published in Others
Views : 568




Comments






Latest Judgments


More »


Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query