Reena Devi and Another vs Jay Narayan Singh

Mihir Kr. Jha, J.—Heard counsel for the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned order passed by the court below directing D.N.A. test of the child strictly placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Goutam Kundu Vs. State of West Bengal and another, . He submits that the order impugned is not only cryptic, but does not fulfill the test as laid down in paragraph 26 of the judgment in the case of Goutam Kundu (supra)

That apart, the counsel also has submitted that the plea of legitimacy of a child who is not a party to the proceeding cannot be taken as a matter of routine exercise as it has a far reaching consequence. In this context he has again placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of "Rabindra Prasad vs. Sita Devi" reported in AIR 1986 Patna 128 [:1986 PLJR (NOC) 74].

This Court would find that none of these aspects have been gone into and the court below which in a most cryptic and perfunctory manner has passed order directing holding of D.N.A. test and that too by taking into account some oral assurance of the counsel. Normally, such oral assurance, if not recorded in writing by the petitioner herself, should not have weighed upon and relied by the court below without examining the petitioner in person.

That being so, this Court would set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Family Court to reconsider the whole issue in the light of aforementioned two judgments and pass a reasoned order. This application is allowed in the aforementioned terms.