2025:CGHC:16566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(227) No. 951 of 2025 Omkar Shukla, S/o Late Satanand Shukla, aged about 59 Years, R/o Village Pendri, P.S. Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh Presently R/o At Government Engineering College Premises, Koni, P.S. Koni, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Santoshi Shukla, W/o Omkar Shukla, D/o Reva Prasad Dubey, aged about 50 Years R/o Old Bajarpara, Ward No. 6, Ghutku, P.S. Koni, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2. Sanjay Alias Dhaneshwar Shukla, S/o Smt. Santoshi Shukla, aged about 36 Years, R/o Old Bajarpara, Ward No. 6, Ghutku, P.S. Koni, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Prateek Tiwari, Advocte. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 22/09/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This writ petition has been filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity, correctness and judicial proprietary of the order dated 02/08/2025 passed in Civil Suit No.923A/2023 by which an application of the petitioner to conduct the DNA test of respondent No.2 was rejected by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an application under section13 (KA) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of decree of divorce. It is an allegation in the application that the respondent No.2 was not born out of the wedlock. In order to ascertain the paternity of respondent No.2, an application was filed to conduct the DNA test of respondent No.2 which have been illegally rejected. ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.10.07 17:55:42 +0530 -2- 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the respondent No.2 is aged about 36 years and application to conduct DNA test was filed almost after 36 years of the marriage. Considering this aspect of matter, the Family Court has rejected the application. 6. In the opinion of this Court, the relief which has been claimed which cannot be granted after lapse of 36 years and findings recorded by the learned Family Court does not appear to be perverse or contrary to the record. 7. Consequently, this writ petition fails and dismissed. 8. All the pending applications are disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish