- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6954 WP No. 102802 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.102802 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. BALASAB @ SHAMEER BABU DUDAGAON AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KUDACHI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SMT. SHARMILA SURESH KHANAPURE AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KONNUR, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BAHUBALI N.KANABARGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SUSHILA SHRIPAL NARDEKAR AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTAURE, H.H.WORK, R/O: JAIN GALLI KUPAWAD, TQ: MIRAJ, DIST: SANGLI, STATE MAHARASHTRA. 2. SMT. SUNANADA NEMINATH CHOUGALE AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, H.H WORK, R/O: AKKIWAT, TQ: SHIROL, DIST: KOLHAPUR, STATE: MAHARASHTRA. 3. JAHIRODDIN JAINULABADDIN BAGASHIRAI AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KUDACHI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. KUTBUDDIN SHABUDDIN KHATIB AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KUDACHI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. RAGHAVENDRA PUROHIT, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED) Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.05.02 13:13:12 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6954 WP No. 102802 of 2017 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2017 ON IA NO.VIII PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC RAIBAG IN O.S.NO.172/2013 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is by the defendant assailing the order passed by the Court of first instance on an application filed in I.A.No.8 wherein the plaintiff in view of serious dispute in regard to their paternity and marriage of their mother with one Babu Dudhagaon, filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking appointment of Court Commissioner for scientific investigation and accordingly, conduct DNA test of plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2. The said application is allowed, which is now impugned in the present writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for respondents/plaintiffs. Perused the order under challenge. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6954 WP No. 102802 of 2017 3. Plaintiffs are claiming to be the children of one Sonabai. Plaintiffs assert that their mother Sonabai is the legally wedded wife of Babu Dudhagaon. However, defendants are seriously disputing the status of Sonabai and also paternity of the plaintiffs herein. It is in this background, after conclusion of trial, plaintiffs have taken recourse to the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 10(A) of CPC to secure DNA test of plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 for effective adjudication. The learned Judge, after conclusion of trial has exercised judicial discretion and has allowed the application thereby directing the parties to the suit to undergo DNA Test. 4. Upon a careful examination of the impugned order, and in light of the specific nature of the defence raised by the defendants in their written statement, wherein they not only challenge the plaintiff's claim of paternity but also question the very existence of a valid marital relationship between the plaintiff's mother, Sonabai, and the alleged father, Babu Dudhagaon, this - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6954 WP No. 102802 of 2017 Court finds no infirmity in the discretionary decision exercised by the learned Trial Judge in directing a DNA test. In cases where such fundamental aspects of identity and legal relationship are under serious dispute, a DNA test serves as a scientifically reliable and conclusive method to ascertain biological connections. The gravity of the allegations and the categorical denial of both marital status and paternity leave little room for conventional evidence to suffice in determining the truth. In this context, the Trial Court has rightly invoked the necessity of a DNA test to meet the ends of justice, ensuring that the adjudication is founded on accurate and objective evidence. This Court, therefore, finds no reason to interfere with the said order in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB. Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15