Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 957 (MP)

Nitiraj @ Badda Lodhi v. Prahlad

2017-09-01

ANJULI PALO

body2017
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed by the applicant so called father of the minor respondent being aggrieved by order dated 9.9.2016 passed in Criminal Revision No.100013/2015 whereby the learned revisional Court has upheld the order of the learned Magistrate dated 11.12.2014 passed in Case No.46/2013 under section 125 of CrPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was having a love affair with the mother of the respondent Preeti Lodhi. The respondent was born as a consequence their bodily relationship and thereafter, the applicant refused to accept and take responsibility of Preeti Lodhi and the respondent (minor son). 3. Preeti Lodhi desired to become the lawfully wedded wife of the applicant. She filed a report in the Police Station of Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur accusing the applicant of raping her, but the applicant was acquitted from the charge. 4. The respondent has filed an application for maintenance under section 125 of CrPC against the applicant in the Court of JMFC Court, Narsingpur. The applicant has denied that the respondent is his son, vide order dated 11.12.2014 learned trial Court decided the case in favour of the respondent, declaring the applicant to be the father of the respondent based on the result of a DNA report and also gave various directions in order to financial support in favour of the respondent and his mother Preeti. 5. It was directed that the applicant shall pay Rs.1,500/- per month maintenance allowance from 1.5.2013 to 1.5.2014 and Rs.2,000/- from 1.5.2014 to till getting maturity maintenance allowance in favour of the respondent. The applicant has filed a revision in the Sessions Court, Narsinghpur, whereby vide order dated 9.9.2016 the Sessions Court upheld the findings of the learned trial Court. 6. Aforesaid findings has been challenged by the applicant on various grounds including that the respondent and his mother are trying to falsely implicate the applicant on false ground. It was contended by learned counsel for the applicant that although the DNA report has been filed but the same has been denied by the applicant in his testimony in paragraph 9. The Court below has acted beyond its jurisdiction on relying upon the document which was not exhibited nor proved by the competent witness. 7. Admittedly DNA test has been done by the trial Court after getting the sample from the applicant and respondent. The Court below has acted beyond its jurisdiction on relying upon the document which was not exhibited nor proved by the competent witness. 7. Admittedly DNA test has been done by the trial Court after getting the sample from the applicant and respondent. Blood samples were tallied between the DNA of the applicant and the respondent. DNA report is under the category of document prescribed in section 293 of the CrPC. Section 293 of the CrPC as follows :- “Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code.” 8. It is an expert report, hence, not required to prove similar ways as other ordinary documents. DNA test report has great evidentially value in such type of cases. 9. Even though, the applicant denied the findings of DNA test report but findings are binding on him. In case of “Mukesh and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others [ AIR 2017 SC 2161 =(2017)6 SCC], it was held that : “in criminal trials, DNA profiling is now statutory scheme under section 53(A) of the CrPC. DNA report deserves to be accepted unless it is absolutely dented and if the sampling is proper and if there is no evidence of tampering of samples, the DNA test report is to be accepted. It is further held that DNA analysis is 100% accurate and at present predominant forensic technique for identifying the persons. DNA is genetic blue print of life. No two persons except identical twins for identical DNA.” 10. By DNA test, it was found that the respondent is son of the applicant. He is minor and is residing with his mother without any financial assistance from his father/applicant. Hence, he is legally entitled to receive maintenance allowance from his father/applicant under section 125 of CrPC. 11. After appreciating of necessary factors such as ability, status, source of earnings of the applicant, necessary and basic requirement of the respondent, essential expenses for living, studying and treatment etc., learned trial Court properly fixed the maintenance amount in favour of the respondent. 12. 11. After appreciating of necessary factors such as ability, status, source of earnings of the applicant, necessary and basic requirement of the respondent, essential expenses for living, studying and treatment etc., learned trial Court properly fixed the maintenance amount in favour of the respondent. 12. In the opinion of this Court, no interference is required in the findings of the learned trial Court. Hence, the petition under section 482 of CrPC is hereby dismissed.