Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 2(f)(9),128(1)(a)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

  Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984)------Arts. 2(f)(9) & 128(1)(a)--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--DNA Examination--Dismissal of application--Appeal--Dismissed--Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance--Conclusive proof--Legitimate child--Denial of paternity--Challenge to--The birth of a child within period specified in Article 2(f)(9) was conclusive proof that he was a legitimate child--The petitioner contracted marriage with Respondent No. 3, later on divorced her--Minor was born on almost after 6½ months of dissolution of marriage--Hence, first denial of paternity appearing from record in instant case was in written statement furnished by petitioner--Whenever a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance was filed against a person he came forward to Court and challenges legitimacy of child by moving an application requesting for conducting DNA analysis of child--Courts focus on child’s needs and emotional welfare, rather than allowing a parent to challenge paternity without valid justification--The use of DNA tests to challenge paternity, while scientifically valid, should not be viewed as a tool for harassment or delay in matters of child maintenance--Courts below had rightly dismissed application of petitioner--Counsel remained unable to persuade High Court to interfere in verdicts of lower foras--Petition dismissed.PLD 2019 SC 449 ref.JUDGMENT:Through this constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has called in question the validity and legality of judgments/orders of the Courts below whereby his application for DNA examination was dismissed concurrently.2. Facts in brevity are that Respondent No. 3 instituted a suit for recovery of her maintenance allowance as well as for her minor son namely Sadaqat Hussain. The petitioner appeared before the Court and contested the suit by filing written statement in contrast wherein he denied the paternity of minor Sadaqat Hussain. He also filed an application for DNA examination of the minor by submitting that he is not his son. Learned Trial Court, after taking its reply, dismissed the same vide order…