Court reserves order on Tiwari’s appeal in paternity suit

Friday, September 24, 2010

NEW DELHI - The Delhi High Court Friday reserved its order on former Andhra Pradesh governor N.D. Tiwari’s plea contesting its single judge’s decision to impose on him Rs.75,000 in costs in a paternity suit slapped by a man claiming to be his biological son.

A bench of Justice Vikramjeet Sen and Justice Mukta Gupta reserved the order after hearing arguments from counsel of both Tiwari and Rohit Shekhar, who claims to be Tiwari’s son.

A single judge bench Aug 13 dismissed Tiwari’s petition for deletion of certain paragraphs from the paternity suit, and termed it an attempt to delay the case. The plea sought deletion of references to a 2005 incident when Rohit Shekhar sought an appointment with Tiwari but the leader allegedly avoided him.

Rajiv Nayyar, counsel for Tiwari, argued that earlier the court had allowed Rohit Shekhar to withdraw the suit, and not permitted him to add new facts into it. “However, when he filed a fresh suit, he added certain new facts relating to his attempts to meet Tiwari in 2005. This (addition) had not been permitted by the court then,” Nayyar argued.

However, Rohit Shekhar’s counsel Sudhir Nandrajog objected to the contention, saying that incorporation of new facts is not a dilution of the suit as the cause of action remained there.

A bench of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat Sep 21 reserved its order on Rohit’s plea for a court direction for a DNA test on Tiwari to prove his claim that the veteran Congress leader was his biological father.

Tiwari opposed the test, pleading that he could not be forced to undergo a DNA test. Countering the claims, Tiwari hit back at petitioner’s mother Ujjwala Sharma, saying he never had any physical relationship with her.

“The plaintiff (Rohit) is not entitled to seek a DNA test as a matter of right. The same is contrary not only to the law but also to equity,” Tiwari’s lawyer said.

The high court had earlier rejected Tiwari’s plea for dismissal of the petition on the ground that it was filed 31 years after the petitioner was born in order to malign him.

Filed under: Immigration

Tags: , , ,
will not be displayed