Dad-in-denial fined for serial paternity dodge

AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat high court has fined Hasmukh Pandya, 42, a teacher from Limkheda — in the tribal district of Dahod — for refusing to accept that he is the father of his three children. Pandya invited the court’s ire because of his dogged denial of fatherhood despite the DNA test conducted by the Directorate of Forensic Sciences (DFS), Gandhinagar, establishing his paternity.
Justice Paresh Upadhyay said, “The husband has not only abused the process of law, but has abused his wife. He is falsified by the clinching evidence like the FSL report. Dismissing the petition without imposing cost would be too lenient a view against him…”
Pandya has paid Rs 2,500 to his wife as directed by the HC for abusing her and unnecessarily making her and their three children — two sons and a daughter — take the test.
Pandya married in 1994; the couple had their first child in 1995; the second in 1996; and the third in 1999. In 2011, Pandya filed for divorce in a Dahod court, accusing his wife of having an extramarital relationship. He also asserted that he was not the biological father of the three children. He demanded the DNA test to prove his claims. However, the court turned down his plea.
The adamant Pandya then filed an appeal in a district court, which ordered his wife and the three children in February 2012 to take the paternity test at the DFS. In September 2013, the FSL report demonstrated that Pandya’s claims were false and that he was indeed the father of the kids.
So the dad-in-denial escalated his campaign and moved the HC, questioning the DFS report. He alleged that the prescribed procedure was not followed while taking DNA samples. The HC rubbished Pandya’s doubts about the DNA report, and said that he wanted a ruse for his divorce petition. Justice Paresh Upadhyay said, “The husband has not only abused the process of law, but has abused his wife. He is falsified by the clinching evidence like the FSL report. Dismissing the petition without imposing cost would be too lenient a view against him…”
The HC also pulled up the district court for telling the wife and the children to submit to the DNA test. “This should not have been done by the appellate court below,” the HC order reads.