Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010255522024 2025:GAU-AS:5881 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/539/2024 ABDUL RASHID @ ABDUL RASID S/O SADULLA AHMED, RESIDENT OF NO. 2, SONAJULI, PO KALIKHULA, PS DIMAKUCHI, DIST UDALGURI, ASSAM 784526 VERSUS MAJIRAN NESSA AND 2 ORS W/O SAYEDUR RAHMAN, RESIDENT OF SANOWATARI PO SANOWA, PS SIPAJHAR DIST DARRANG ASSAM 784145 2:NEKIBUR RAHMAN S/O UNKNOWN RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 426 BAGHARBARI SATGAON MAIN ROAD NEAR NAWAPARA JAME MASJID BACKSIDE OF ASHIANA HOTEL AND RESTAURANT PO AND PS SATGAON DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 781027 3:SELIMA BEGUM W/O NEKIBUR RAHMAN RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 426 BAGHARBARI SATGAON MAIN ROAD NEAR NAWAPARA JAME MASJID BACKSIDE OF ASHIANA HOTEL AND RESTAURANT PO AND PS SATGAON DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 78102 For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Y. S. Mannan, Advocate For the respondent (s) : Mr. M. Hoque, Advocate Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 09.05.2025 Heard Mr. Y. S. Mannan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. M. Hoque, the learned appearing on behalf of the re-numbered respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3. 2. The petitioner herein has assailed the order dated 05.10.2024 passed in Misc.(G) Case No.45/2023 whereby the application so filed by the petitioner seeking scientific test for determining the parentage of the child Md. Ayan Wafiqur Rashid @ Muhammad Anas was rejected. 3. Mr. Y. S. Mannan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that taking into account the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ivan Rathinam vs. Milan Joseph, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 175, the stage at which the petitioner had filed the application seeking DNA testing of the child appears to be premature in as much as without any evidence led, the learned Court of the Principal Judge, Family Page No.# 3/5 Court No.3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (for short, ‘the learned Trial Court’) would not be in a position to determine as to whether the scientific test was required. He therefore referred to the paragraph Nos.47 & 51 of the said judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that the petitioner herein would adduce evidence, and thereupon, if there is any requirement, the petitioner would file again a similar application and this Court may pass appropriate order to the effect that if such application is filed at a later stage, the learned Trial Court shall consider the said application without being influenced by the impugned order dated 05.10.2024. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that he has no objection taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ivan Rathinam (supra). 5. In that view of the matter, the instant petition therefore stands disposed of with the observation that the petition so filed by the petitioner seeking scientific examination/DNA test of the child was premature at the stage when the impugned order dated 05.10.2024 was passed. The learned Trial Court either ought to have rejected the same as prematured or ought to have kept the said application pending evidence led by the parties. Page No.# 4/5 6. Accordingly, this Court disposes of the present application granting liberty to the petitioner herein to submit evidence proving his parentage over the child. Upon such evidence being adduced, the learned Trial Court shall give due opportunity to the respondents to adduce evidence and thereupon if it is found necessary, the learned Trial Court shall afresh decide the application bearing petition No.260/2023. For that purpose, this Court interferes with the order dated 05.10.2024 in so far as the petition No.260/2023 and restores the said petition being petition No.260/2023 to the file of the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court shall adjudicate the said petition No.260/2023, if found necessary after adducing of evidence by both the parties and without being influenced by the interference made to the order dated 05.10.2024 and keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ivan Rathinam (supra). 7. Before parting, this Court further takes note of the submission of Mr. Y. S. Mannan, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein has been deprived of meeting his child, and as such, an appropriate direction be issued to the learned Trial Court for an early disposal of the Misc. (G) Case No.45/2023. 8. This Court taking into account the facts would request the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.3, Kamrup Page No.# 5/5 (M) at Guwahati to decide the application being Misc.(G) Case No.45/2023 at the earliest however subject to the convenience of the Court. JUDGE Comparing Assistant