JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 14.11.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T. No. 2, Bikaner in Case No. 268/2011 in revision whereby the learned revisional Court has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 20.7.2011 passed by the learned Judge, Gram Nyayalaya, Kolayat in Cr. Case No. 28/2010 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for subjecting the respondent to D.N.A. Examination. 2. The petitioner moved the Trial Court by way of an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the respondent. The respondent contested the proceedings and took a stand that he had no relation with the petitioner and that the child claimed to have born from the wedlock of the parties i.e. Seema and Pawan was not born from his loin. The petitioner accordingly moved the trial Court for subjecting the respondent to D.N.A. Examination for comparing his D.N.A. with that of the off spring Gauri Shanker. Such application was rejected by the trial Court. Hence the misc. petition. 3. The misc. petition was filed by the petitioner in the January 2012. The notice of the respondent Pawan could not be served despite repeated efforts. It appears that in the meantime, the trial Court issued warrant for recovery of maintenance amount under the interim maintenance order passed in the petitioner's favour, on which the respondent felt the heat was forced to put in his appearance by filing a misc. petition for challenging the recovery proceedings. 4. When the Misc. Petition No. 1338/2013 filed by Pawan came up for consideration, this Court directed the learned counsel Mr. Kailash Khatri to accept the notice of this petition on his behalf and accordingly he accepted the notice and agreed to argue the matter. This Court feels that if the respondent Pawan Maru challenges the claim of the petitioner Smt. Seema regarding paternity of the child, then he should be bold enough to undergo the D.N.A. Test so that truth can be brought out. In the event, he refuses to undergo the D.N.A. Test, then obviously the trial Court would be entitled to draw adverse inference against him. In the event, he refuses to undergo the D.N.A. Test, then obviously the trial Court would be entitled to draw adverse inference against him. Thus, in order to bring truth on the record and in order to impart substantial justice, it is hereby directed that the respondent should be directed to undergo the D.N.A. Test for ascertaining the claim of paternity of the child Gauri Shanker. 5. In the view of the matter, the miscellaneous petition deserves to be accepted and it is hereby allowed. The order dated 20.7.2011 passed by the learned trial Court and the order dated 14.11.2011 passed by the learned Revisional Court are set aside and now it is directed that the respondent shall submit himself before the trial Court i.e. the learned Judge, Family Court, Bikaner within a period of four weeks from today. The learned Judge, Family Court shall thereafter take appropriate steps for forwarding D.N.A. sample of respondent Pawan Maru and Gauri Shanker the petitioner's son for comparison. The expenses of the D.N.A. Test shall be shared by the petitioner and respondent Pawan Maru equally. If the respondent Pawan Maru fails to appear before the trial Court for submitting his D.N.A. sample as directed above, the trial Court shall draw adverse inference regarding the child's paternity against him.Petition allowed. *******