AUUP KUMAR MAITY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-2022-9-92
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 22,2022

Auup Kumar Maity Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SHAMLAL @ KULDIP VS. SANJEEV KUMAR AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
GOUTAM KUNDU VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
BANARSI DASS VS. TEEKU DUTTA [REFERRED TO]
NANDLAL WASUDEO BADWAIK VS. LATA NANDLAL BADWAIK [REFERRED TO]
DIPANWITA ROY VS. RONOBROTO ROY [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. RAJ GUPTA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

BIBEK CHAUDHURI,J. - (1.)The petitioner is the husband of the opposite party No.2. In the year 2018 the opposite party No.2 filed an application under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk. The said application for maintenance was registered as Misc Case No.463 of 2018 and was transferred to the 3rd Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate at Tamluk for disposal. In the said proceeding the opposite party No.2 filed an application praying for interim maintenance and the trial court allowed the said application directing the petitioner to make payment of Rs.5500.00 per month in favour of the opposite party No.2. The petitioner has been going on paying the said amount of interim maintenance in favour of the opposite party No.2. Subsequently, on 12/1/2021 the private opposite party filed another application for interim maintenance for her child, namely, Priyankshu Maity. It was pleaded by the opposite party No.2 that the said child was born in the wedlock between the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 on 30/6/2019 in a private nursing home. The petitioner filed a written objection in the aforesaid proceeding denying paternity of the child on the ground that the petitioner had no access to the opposite party No.2 during the period when the opposite party No.2 might be conceived for giving birth to the said child. That on 20/1/2021 the petitioner filed an application praying for a direction upon opposite party No.2 for conducting DNA test of the said child for scientific decision as to the paternity of the said child. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court at Tamluk rejected the petitioner's application for conducting DNA test of the said child of the opposite party No.2.
(2.)Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk assailing the order dtd. 3/2/2021. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the prayer for DNA test vide order dtd. 28/4/2022 while disposing of the said revisional application. The said order dtd. 28/4/2022 is under challenge in the instant application.
(3.)Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the specific case of the petitioner is that the opposite party No.2 left her matrimonial home voluntarily with all her belongings on 1/10/2014. Subsequently, on 12/10/2018 the petitioner as plaintiff filed a suit for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce against the opposite party No.2. Therefore, the opposite party No.2 filed a complaint under Sec. 498A of the IPC against the petitioner and other matrimonial relations of the private opposite party, vide Marishda P.S Case No.188/2018 dtd. 24/11/2018. On 28/11/2018 she filed two applications against the petitioner, one under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and the other under Ss. 125 of the Cr.P.C.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.