The Court noted that the petitioner’s case was that she was the legally wedded wife of the respondent and that they had resided together as husband and wife in the shared household.
She also alleged that a son was born out of the wedlock between the petitioner and the respondent and now the son has attained the age of 35 years.
However, the Court said that even if a DNA test is conducted and paternity is proved, that would not help the petitioner to prove the so-called marriage or domestic relationship.
The Court, therefore, upheld the trial court order and rejected the prayer of the petitioner to conduct DNA test.
The petitioners were represented by advocates Sarath MS and B Premnath.
The respondents were represented by advocates Santosh Mathew, Arun Thomas, Anil Sebastian Pulickel, Veena Raveendran, Karthika Maria, Sanita Sabu Varghese, Nanda Sanal, Kurian Antony Mathew and Manasa Benny George.
Source: Barandbench
