HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13900 of 2025 Court No. - 74 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J. 1. Heard Shri Anand Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Alok Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. 2. The present application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed to quash the order dated 30.5.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 3, Azamgarh in Maintenance Case No. 457 of 2017, whereby an application to conduct DNA test has been allowed as well as order dated 21.3.2025 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Azamgarh, whereby objection has been dismissed. 3. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without considering the circumstances and position of law. It is further submitted that the maintenance case under Section 125, Cr.P.C. has been filed by opposite party No. 2 and minor daughter, opposite party No. 3, who represented by her natural guardian (mother) in the year of 2017. The case is pending at the stage of final argument. 4. Learned counsel for both the parties jointly submitted that the parties produced their evidence on the factum of paternity of Private-Opposite Party No. 2 (minor daughter). The Supreme Court in the case of Aparna Ajinkya Firodia Vs. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, 2024 (7) SCC 773 observed that merely because either of the parties have disputed the factum of paternity, it does not mean that the Court should direct DNA test or such other test to resolve the controversy. The parties should be directed to lead evidence to Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Kr Srivastava, Pratibha Asthana Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dheeraj Kumar Maurya, G.A., Narendra Kumar Dr. Jitendra Singh Kushwaha .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) prove or disprove the factum of paternity and only if the Court finds it impossible to draw an inference based on such evidence, or the controversy in issue cannot be resolved without DNA test, it may direct DNA test and not otherwise. In other words, only in exceptional and deserving cases, where such a test becomes indispensable to resolve the controversy the Court can direct such test. 5. Learned counsel for both the parties jointly submitted that no reasoning has been given by the court concerned. 6. There is no point for consideration except the aforesaid controversy. There is no necessity to exchange pleadings of the parties. 7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the aforesaid orders are not sustainable in law. The present application is allowed and the orders dated 30.5.2024 and 21.3.2025 are, hereby, quashed. October 6, 2025 T. Sinha NA528 No. 13900 of 2025 2 (Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.) Digitally signed by :- TRIPTI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad