ORDER : The petitioner in these two petitions is the husband of the respondent in the said petitions. Due to certain marital discord, the petitioner has instituted a petition in M.C.No.147/2015 under Section 13(1) (i)(a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the pending proceedings, the petitioner has filed an application seeking amendment to the petition. Further, the petitioner has also filed an application under Order 26 Rule 10(a) seeking that the respondent and the elder son of the parties be directed to undergo the DNA test. Court below has rejected both the applications. In that light, the petitioner is before this Court in these petitions. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the petitions papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the case seeking amendment as also the reference of the parties to undergo DNA test would submit that the petitioner has sought for the said prayers in view of the fact that, according to the petitioner the elder son is not born out of the wedlock of the petitioner and as such. The pleading as sought by way of amendment is required to establish such case and also to seek for the relief of reference of the parties to under go DNA test. In the light of the contentions as put forth, I have perused the petitions papers, more particularly, with regard to the papers as available in W.P.No.37147/2017 which relates to the order passed on I.A.No.6 regarding the amendment that has been sought since the companion petition would arise only if amendment as sought is permitted to be carried out. 4. In that regard, a perusal of the proposed amendment would indicate that the petitioner is seeking to incorporate paragraph 9A to contend that the birth of the elder son of the parties is under suspicious circumstances and is not due to the marital union of the petitioner and the respondent. This having given rise to suspicion, the petitioner is seeking to incorporate the same. In that light, a perusal of the averments as made in the petition initially at para 5 would indicate that the petitioner has admitted the relationship including that, out of the marital life they have begotten two male children and has also categorically stated that the elder son has completed his education in M.Tech. In that light, a perusal of the averments as made in the petition initially at para 5 would indicate that the petitioner has admitted the relationship including that, out of the marital life they have begotten two male children and has also categorically stated that the elder son has completed his education in M.Tech. If that be the position, the amendment as proposed to be added, presently, is contrary to the averments that has been made in the petition and therefore, such amendment cannot be permitted. 5. In that view, the conclusion as reached by the Court below to reject I.A.6 is justified. If that be the position, when such averment itself is not available, the prayer as made in I.A. 5 to refer the parties to DNA test would also not arise. Therefore, both the orders which are assailed in these petitions are not erroneous and the same do not call for interference. The petitions being devoid of merits stand disposed of.