1 2026:CGHC:15042 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 378 of 2026 Yogita Bandhe W/o Shekhar Bandhe Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Basin, Tehsil Rajim, District Gariaband Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o At Collector Colony, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Petitioner/ Defendant) ... Petitioner(s) versus Shekhar Bandhe S/o Lakhan Bandhe Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Basin, Tehsil Rajim, District Gariaband Chhattisgarh (Respondent/ Plaintiff) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 01/04/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.01.2026 passed by learned Family Court, Mahasamund in Civil Suit 2 No. 59A/2025 whereby an objection raised by the petitioner with respect to maintainability of the application filed by the respondent under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent has filed an application for grant of divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Family Court, Mahasamund on the ground that he is not the biological father of the daughter of the petitioner-wife and raising the allegation of the extramarital affair of the petitioner, he filed an application for grant of divorce in which he filed the DNA test report. The said DNA test report was conducted by the respondent on his own without there being any proper direction of any Court or any authorities, which is inadmissible in evidence, yet the respondent is prosecuting the application for grant of divorce on the sole basis of the DNA test report. The said objection raised by the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Family Court on the ground that the case is at its initial stage and the authenticity of the DNA report can be tested at an appropriate stage during the trial and after recording evidence of the parties. He would also submit that when the DNA report itself is inadmissible in the sole basis of the application filed by the respondent, the proceeding pending before the learned Family Court is liable to be dismissed, yet her objection has been rejected. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. Though, no other documents have been annexed in the petition except for the order impugned, however, from perusal of the impugned order, it 3 would reveal that the objection of the petitioner regarding maintainability of the divorce application filed by the respondent on the ground of admissibility of DNA report, has been rejected by the learned Family Court holding that the case is at initial stage and the authenticity of the DNA report can be tested at the appropriate stage during the trial. The respondent is prosecuting his case and the ground for grant of divorce raised by the respondent in his application filed under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Family Court, in which the petitioner who is the non-applicant has every right to file her written statement and to defend her case and also to contest her case that the DNA report is not genuine. Further, the petitioner who is the defendant before the learned Family Court has every right to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the applicant/present respondent and the Court is under obligation to decide the dispute between the parties under the facts and circumstances as well as evidence produced by the parties. 6. At this stage, it can not be said that the objection raised by the petitioner is having some force on the basis of which, the application filed by the respondent shall be dismissed. Accordingly, I do not find any scope for interference in the present writ petition. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit