JUDGMENT S.B. Shukre, J. (Oral) - Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. 2. In the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court rendered in a dispute between these very parties, Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2014, dated 6.1.2014, it has been observed thus : "As stated earlier, the DNA test is an accurate test and on that basis it is clear that the appellant is not the biological father of the girl-child...." Therefore, in my considered view, this finding would have a bearing upon rights of the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that considerations for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C., 1973 and grant of support under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act are different. He has placed reliance on the following judgments : (1) Ramesh Chandra Rampratapji Daga vs. Rameshwari Ramesh Chandra Daga, 2005 (1) RCR (Civil) 615 . (2) Manish Jain vs. Akanksha Jain, 2017 (2) RCR (Civil) 682 . (3) Amarjit Kaur vs. Harbhajan Singh & anr, (2003) 10 SCC 228 . (4) Gangu Pundlik Waghmare vs. Pundlik Maroti Waghmare & anr, 1979 Mh. L.J. 555 . (5) Dwarkadas Gurumukhdas Agrawal vs. Bhanuben, AIR 1986 Gujarat 8 . (6) Smt. Pampa Das vs. Sanjib Das, AIR 2005 Cal 266 . (7) Rajesh Burman vs. Mitul Chatterjee (Burman), (2009) 1 SCC 398 . 4. On going through the judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondent, I find that although it is held that the considerations to be borne in mind while deciding application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act are those which are stated expressly in that Section and that merits of the case cannot be gone into, the fact remains about the impact an issue would have on the order of maintenance pendent lite if unchastity of the respondent comes to fore after DNA test. And if the DNA test is proved to be positive, again there will be adverse impact on the order of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act. The trial Court has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter. Therefore, the impugned order will have to be quashed and set aside or otherwise, it is likely to cause injustice to the parties. 5. Writ Petition is allowed. The trial Court has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter. Therefore, the impugned order will have to be quashed and set aside or otherwise, it is likely to cause injustice to the parties. 5. Writ Petition is allowed. Impugned order is quashed and set aside and matter is remanded back to the trial Court for fresh consideration by taking into consideration the provisions of law and the principles laid down in the above-referred cases. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.