JUDGMENT : Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. The present appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 13.05.2022 passed by the Family Court, Balod, Chhattisgrh in Civil Suit No.33-A of 2016 whereby the suit preferred by respondent no.1 Jitendra Kumar Patwa was allowed by holding that plaintiff/respondent no.1 was born out of marital union of appellant/defendant No.1 Heeralal and defendant/respondent no.2 Meen Bai, thereby plaintiff/respondent no.1 Jitendra Kumar Patwa was declared to be biological son of the appellant/defendant no.1. Hence, Defendant No.1 Heeralal Patwa @ Heeru Patwa has preferred this appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the suit was filed by Jitendra Kumar Patwa wherein it was pleaded that defendant no.1 Heeralal Patwa was engaged in sale of grossery items. The defendants became familiar with each other and subsequently they fell in love and according to their custom “Chudi”, she was married. Subsequently, they started living at village Gurur District Balod in the rented house of one Balarm Sahu. It is stated that out of such marital union, the plaintiff was born to them on 02.08.1992 at village Gurur. While he was admitted in the school, the name of father of the plaintiff was got recorded as Heeralal Patwa. The plaintiff further pleaded that before the society, defendant no.1 used to admit the the plaintiff as his biological son and when they used to meet in private, he refused their relation. After the plaintiff became major, his marriage was fixed as such he is required to give the identity of his father and requested the society that his father be shown as Heeralal Patwa (D-1). The Society meeting was convened but eventually defendant no.1 Heeralal Patwa refused to admit the plaintiff as his son. Therefore, subsequent to it a declaratory suit was filed praying that the plaintiff Jitendra Kumar Patwa be declared as bio-logical son of defendant Heeralal Patwa. 3. Defendant no.1 Heeralal denied the entire plaint allegations and stated that he does not know even the identity of the plaintiff as also his biological mother (defendant no.2 herein) . Defendant no.1 has further denied his cohabitation with defendant no.2 Meena Bai and birth of the plaintiff to them, thereby, the entire identity of plaintiff and defendant no.2 was denied. 4. Defendant no.1 has further denied his cohabitation with defendant no.2 Meena Bai and birth of the plaintiff to them, thereby, the entire identity of plaintiff and defendant no.2 was denied. 4. The mother stated that she was in relation with defendant no.1 Heeralal Patwa and out of their relation, the plaintiff was born and while the plaintiff was admitted in School, the name of father was shown as Heeral Lal Patwa, (D-1). Certain family functions have been referred to but eventually defendant no.1 shown his hostile attitude and refused to admit his relation. 5. On the basis of pleading of the parties, the learned family court framed the issue as to whether the plaintiff can be declared as biological son of defendant no.1 Heeralal and gave the answer in affirmative. In respect of claim for damages of Rs.20,000/-, that was denied. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant father would submit that nothing has been proved by the plaintiff which can precipitate the fact that appellant Heeralal was biological father. He would submit that Ex.D-1 & D-2 would show that occupation of defendant no.1 was shown as labour and not as a grossery seller, therefore, the identity itself was in question. He would submit that the statement of appellant would show that the entire relations with plaintiff and his mother defendant no.2 were denied, hence a wrong finding of fact has been arrived at. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there is nothing on record to show that the finding is perverse. He would submit that Ex.D-1 & D-2 itself would show the name of the father of the plaintiff as Heeralal and the statement of mother N.A.W.2 would show that she was in relation with defendant Heeralal and out of that relation and marriage performed with him, the child was born. He would submit that this evidence even could not be rebutted. Consequently the finding arrived at by the learned Family Court is well merited which does not call for any interference. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff in his statement averred that he came to know from his mother (D-2) that he was born out of the relation between Heeralal Patwa (D-1) and Meena Bai (D-2) on 02.08.1992 and states that when he was in the womb, the father left his mother. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff in his statement averred that he came to know from his mother (D-2) that he was born out of the relation between Heeralal Patwa (D-1) and Meena Bai (D-2) on 02.08.1992 and states that when he was in the womb, the father left his mother. He further submits that till he attained the age of majority, he kept silent but with the passage of time when his marriage was to be fixed, he was required to be settled in life, he needed the identity of his father. Consequently he went to the society to resolve the dispute upon which certain a meeting was held wherein initially, defendant no.1 admitted that the plaintiff Jitendra Patwa was his son but subsequently his father denied the relation of paternity. The mother (D.W.2) has categorically admitted the fact and stated that out of the relation between Heerlal and herself, the child was born. This statement of the Heeralal and the cross examination would lead to show that when the suggestions were given to him, he absolutely denied the same. In such a case, the statement of mother on the other hand inspires confidence which speaks about the special relation between the parties which is known to them. Such statement of mother can be protected u/s 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which lays down that when a Court has to form an opinion as to the relation of one person or the other, the opinion expressed by the conduct as to the existence of such relationship, or any person who as a member of family or otherwise has special means of knowledge on the subject, would be a relevant fact. 9. It is apparently clear from the copy of school admission register (Ex.D-2) which is on record that the name of the father of the plaintiff Jitendra was shown as Heeralal, his caste was shown as Patwa and his profession was shown as Labour. Only for the reason that avocation has been shown as labour instead of a grocesery business man, much emphasis cannot be given to it. Therefore, Ex.D-2 demonstrates the fact that the father of plaintiff is Heeralal (D-1). 10. Now turning back to the order sheet of the learned family Court dated 07.03.2017 would show that an application was filed by the plaintiff to get the DNA test. Therefore, Ex.D-2 demonstrates the fact that the father of plaintiff is Heeralal (D-1). 10. Now turning back to the order sheet of the learned family Court dated 07.03.2017 would show that an application was filed by the plaintiff to get the DNA test. Learned family Court on the basis of law laid down in AIR 1993 S.C. 2293 Gautam Kundu Versus State of West Bengal rejected the application on the ground that the a person cannot be compelled to undergo a DNA Test. In the like nature of case, the Supreme Court in Dipanwita Roy Versus Ronobroto Roy (2015) 1 SCC 365 observed that when one of the parties refused to get himself exposed for DNA test then the adverse inference can be drawn. Para 18 is relevant here and quoted below : 18. We would, however, while upholding the order passed by the High Court, consider it just and appropriate to record a caveat, giving the appellant wife liberty to comply with or disregard the order passed by the High Court, requiring the holding of the DNA test. In case, she accepts the direction issued by the High Court, the DNA test will determine conclusively the veracity of accusation levelled by the respondent husband against her. In case, she declines to comply with the direction issued by the High Court, the allegation would be determined by the court concerned by drawing a presumption of the nature contemplated in Section 114 of the Evidence Act, especially, in terms of Illustration (h) thereof. Section 114 as also Illustration (h), referred to above, are being extracted hereunder: “114. Court may presume existence of certain facts.-The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.” “Illustration (h)--that if a man refused to answer a question which he is not compelled to answer by law, the answer, if given, would be unfavourable to him. This Course has been adopted to preserve the right of individual privacy to the extent possible. Of course, without sacrificing the cause of justice. By adopting the above course, the issue of infidelity alone would be determined, without expressly disturbing the presumption contemplated under Section 112 of the Evidence Act. This Course has been adopted to preserve the right of individual privacy to the extent possible. Of course, without sacrificing the cause of justice. By adopting the above course, the issue of infidelity alone would be determined, without expressly disturbing the presumption contemplated under Section 112 of the Evidence Act. Even though, as already stated above, undoubtedly the issue of legitimacy would also be incidentally involved.” 11. Further more in a recent dictum laid down in Ashok Kumar Versus Raj Gupta, (2022) 1 SCC 20 , the Supreme Court had occasion to deal with the similar issue as to whether refusal to undergo DNA testing amounts to “other evidence” or in other words, can an adverse inference be drawn in such situation. In that case, the Court followed the ratio laid down in Sharda V. Dharmpat (2003) 4 SCC 493 wherein a three-judge Bench of Supreme Court observed that “if despite an order passed by the Court, a person refuses to submit himself to such medical examination, a strong case for drawing an adverse inference” can be made out against the person within the ambit of Section 114 of the Evidence Act. The plaintiff here has adduced his documentary evidence and is disinclined to produce further evidence. He is conscious of the adverse consequences of his refusal but is standing firm in refusing to undergo the DNA test. His suit eventually will be decided on the nature and quality of evidence adduced. The issue of drawing adverse inference may also arise based on the refusal. The Court is to weigh both sides’ evidence with all attendant circumstances and then reach a verdict in the suit and this is not the kind of case where a DNA test of the plaintiff is without exception. 12. In Gautam Kundu Versus State of West Bengal (supra) it was held that the parties cannot be compelled to undergo DNA test but at the same time in the paternity cases of like nature, if one of the parties refused to get himself examined for DNA test then the adverse inference is required to be drawn against the party refusing such examination. 13. In the instant case, since the defendant appellant himself refused to undergo the DNA test which could have been fool-proof evidence of paternity, such scientific evidence would have overlapped the oral evidence and this aspect cannot be denied. 14. 13. In the instant case, since the defendant appellant himself refused to undergo the DNA test which could have been fool-proof evidence of paternity, such scientific evidence would have overlapped the oral evidence and this aspect cannot be denied. 14. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court is well merited, which do not call for any interference. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.