8. As far as DNA test is concerned, it has been observed in the
case reported as “Mst. Shamim Akhtar v. Additional District
Judge, Gujranwala and another”(PLD 2015 Lahore 500) that DNA
test is always conducted with the consent of the person concerned and
no such consent is available and once consent has not been given,
DNA test could not be conducted. It has also been held in the case
reported as “Khizar Hayat vs. Additional District Judge,
Kabirwala and 2 others”(PLD 2010 Lahore 422) that direction could
not be issued for conducting the DNA Test as a matter of routine in
cases where father refuses to acknowledge his child born during
lawful wedlock because under Article 128 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat
Order, 1984, a child born during continuance of a valid marriage or
within two years of its dissolution, if mother remained unmarried
during that period, was conclusive proof that he was legitimate child
of that man, unless the man denied the same. Birth of the minor one
year before divorce indicated that he was born during subsistence of
marriage, presumption could safely be drawn that he was legitimate
child of the defendant. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed
reliance on “Mst. Shamshad Bibi v. Bushra Bibi and 3
others”(PLD 2009 Islamabad 11), “Naseer Ahmed v. Mst. Azrah
and another”(PLD 2010 Karachi 61). However, the facts and
circumstances of the said cases are distinguishable as in the earlier
case consent of the parties was given for DNA test and on their consent matter was directed to be referred to the institute concerned
for conducting of DNA test. No illegality has been found in the
impugned orders passed by learned Judge Family Court, Multan.
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition-Family-Miscellaneous
9730-15
2017 LHC 238
0 comments:
Post a Comment