Suman Chandel v. Santosh Singh Chandel and others), under Section

during the course of marriage. Further submits that the learned trial court has rejected the application by order dated 31.08.2022 against which she filed an appeal before the learned court of Sessions that was also dismissed by order dated 28.07.2025. Further submits that since the opposite party no.2/husband 2 CRLR No. 5085 of 2025 has denied the revisionist to be his wife and also the child Rudra Pratap Singh @ Madhav Singh as his son and he has entered into second marriage with some other lady and is ready to transfer his whole movable and immovable property in favour of his second wife and children, therefore, to establish the fact that Rudra Pratap Singh @ Madhav Singh is son of opposite party no.2 D.N.A. test be got done. He also submits that learned trial court has mentioned in the order that case u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was also decided against the revisionist/wife by order dated 08.05.2010 and in that case no prayer for D.N.A. was made and also relied on the order passed by learned C.J.M., Azamgarh on 27.09.2016 holding the revisionist not to be legally wedded wife of opposite party no.2. The prayer of the revisionist was not considered by the learned trial court but illegally the order was passed, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court dated

31.08.2022 and also the order passed by learned appellate court dated

28.07.2025. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the relief as prayed by the revisionist in the complaint u/s 12 is against the opposite party no.2 and other members of his family relating to domestic violence with her. The question of deciding paternity of the son is not involved in the complaint. In case D.N.A. test is directed to be done and it comes positive even then the fact of valid marriage between the opposite party no.2 and the revisionist cannot be said to be established. For the purposes of establishing the fact that Rudra Pratap Singh @ Madhav Singh is son of opposite party no.2 or not, D.N.A. test cannot be directed to be done in the case under the aforesaid Act since this is not a fact in issue. The learned trial court has passed the order after considering all the facts of the case likewise the order by the learned appellate court has been passed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and the order passed by the learned trial court dated 31.08.2022 as well as the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the learned appellate court, it appears that the order has been passed in case u/s 12 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act filed by the revisionist/wife against the opposite party no.2/husband and other members of his family. The application on which the present order has been passed was moved by the revisionist/wife for the purpose of D.N.A. test of her son Rudra Pratap Singh @ Madhav Singh stating that he was born on 02.11.2001 with the opposite 3 CRLR No. 5085 of 2025 party no.2. He has not given even a single penny to her for maintenance and has also not helped in the education of the child. For avoiding himself from the case he has not accepted Rudra Pratap Singh @ Madhav Singh to be his son and also entered into second marriage with one Savita and he is willing to transfer his whole movable and immovable property in favour of second wife and children, therefore, for establishing the fact that Rudra Pratap Singh @ Madhav Singh is son of Santosh Singh Chandel, D.N.A. test must be got done. From the contents of the application moved by the wife for getting D.N.A. test of the child it appears that the purpose is to get the fact established as to whether Rudra Pratap Singh @ Madhav Singh is son of opposite party no.2 or not but actually, it is not for the purpose of deciding the fact of domestic violence against her by opposite party no.2 and other members of his family and also it is not related to the fact of marriage between the revisionist and opposite party no.2. In case, it is assumed that D.N.A. test comes positive and it is established that Rudra Pratap Singh @ Madhav Singh is son of O.P.2/Santosh Kumar Chandel, even then the fact of valid marriage between the revisionist and opposite party no.2 cannot be said to be proved or established unless there is any other oral and documentary evidence in this regard. Only on the basis of D.N.A. test, the fact of valid marriage between the revisionist and opposite party no.2 cannot be decided. On the other hand, Rudra Pratap Singh @ Madhav Singh is not party to the complaint and his paternity is also not in question, therefore, there appears no need of D.N.A. test of Rudra Pratap Singh @ Madhav Singh. In this regard, the order dated 31.08.2022 passed by learned Magistrate while rejecting the application for D.N.A. test cannot be said to be illegal or inappropriate likewise the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the learned appellate court can also not be said to be illegal or inappropriate. As a result, this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. September 4, 2025 Ashok Gupta (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)

during the course of marriage. Further submits that the learned trial court has rejected the application by order dated 31.08.2022 against which she filed an appeal before the learned court of Sessions that was also dismissed by order dated 28.07.2025. Further submits that since the opposite party no.2/husband 2 CRLR No. 5085 of 2025 has denied the revisionist to be his wife and also the child Rudra Pratap Singh @ Madhav Singh as his son and he has entered into second marriage with some other lady and is ready to transfer his whole movable and immovable property in favour of his second wife and children, therefore, to establish the fact that Rudra Pratap Singh @ Madhav Singh is son of opposite party no.2 D.N.A. test be got done. He also submits that learned trial court has mentioned in the order that case u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was also decided against the revisionist/wife by order dated 08.05.2010 and in that case no prayer for D.N.A. was made and also relied on the order passed by learned C.J.M., Azamgarh on 27.09.2016 holding the revisionist not to be legally wedded wife of opposite party no.2. The prayer of the revisionist was not considered by the learned trial court but illegally the order was passed, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court dated

31.08.2022 and also the order passed by learned appellate court dated

28.07.2025. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the relief as prayed by the revisionist in the complaint u/s 12 is against the opposite party no.2 and other members of his family relating to domestic violence with her. The question of deciding paternity of the son is not involved in the complaint. In case D.N.A. test is directed to be done and it comes positive even then the fact of valid marriage between the opposite party no.2 and the revisionist cannot be said to be established. For the purposes of establishing the fact that Rudra Pratap Singh @ Madhav Singh is son of opposite party no.2 or not, D.N.A. test cannot be directed to be done in the case under the aforesaid Act since this is not a fact in issue. The learned trial court has passed the order after considering all the facts of the case likewise the order by the learned appellate court has been passed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and the order passed by the learned trial court dated 31.08.2022 as well as the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the learned appellate court, it appears that the order has been passed in case u/s 12 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act filed by the revisionist/wife against the opposite party no.2/husband and other members of his family. The application on which the present order has been passed was moved by the revisionist/wife for the purpose of D.N.A. test of her son Rudra Pratap Singh @ Madhav Singh stating that he was born on 02.11.2001 with the opposite 3 CRLR No. 5085 of 2025 party no.2. He has not given even a single penny to her for maintenance and has also not helped in the education of the child. For avoiding himself from the case he has not accepted Rudra Pratap Singh @ Madhav Singh to be his son and also entered into second marriage with one Savita and he is willing to transfer his whole movable and immovable property in favour of second wife and children, therefore, for establishing the fact that Rudra Pratap Singh @ Madhav Singh is son of Santosh Singh Chandel, D.N.A. test must be got done. From the contents of the application moved by the wife for getting D.N.A. test of the child it appears that the purpose is to get the fact established as to whether Rudra Pratap Singh @ Madhav Singh is son of opposite party no.2 or not but actually, it is not for the purpose of deciding the fact of domestic violence against her by opposite party no.2 and other members of his family and also it is not related to the fact of marriage between the revisionist and opposite party no.2. In case, it is assumed that D.N.A. test comes positive and it is established that Rudra Pratap Singh @ Madhav Singh is son of O.P.2/Santosh Kumar Chandel, even then the fact of valid marriage between the revisionist and opposite party no.2 cannot be said to be proved or established unless there is any other oral and documentary evidence in this regard. Only on the basis of D.N.A. test, the fact of valid marriage between the revisionist and opposite party no.2 cannot be decided. On the other hand, Rudra Pratap Singh @ Madhav Singh is not party to the complaint and his paternity is also not in question, therefore, there appears no need of D.N.A. test of Rudra Pratap Singh @ Madhav Singh. In this regard, the order dated 31.08.2022 passed by learned Magistrate while rejecting the application for D.N.A. test cannot be said to be illegal or inappropriate likewise the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the learned appellate court can also not be said to be illegal or inappropriate. As a result, this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. September 4, 2025 Ashok Gupta (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)