Madras HC dismisses claims of a woman being daughter of Jayalalithaa

Prime News, Nation, (Chennai), October 13:-The Madras High Court on Friday dismissed a petition of a woman, who claimed that she was the biological daughter of late chief minister Jayalalithaa, stating that she “miserably failed in her endeavour to establish the same”.

Justice S Vaidyanathan, who dismissed the petition, said that since the woman could not establish she was the biological daughter, there was no question of the court allowing her to perform the last rites for Jayalalitha as per Vaishnavite rituals, as requested.

The judge dismissed the petition of S Amrutha, 38, of Bengaluru, her relatives LS Lalitha and Ranjani Ravindranath.

Concurring with the submission of Advocate General Vijay Narayan that Amrutha was trying to defame Jayalalithaa, the judge said that according to the Puranas, dead people have the right to privacy and their souls should not be disturbed, “as they have immortal life after their death”.

“In this case, though we are able to see a lot of twists and turns, creating moments of excitement and anxiousness that alone cannot be sufficient to arrive at a definite conclusion in the absence of any supporting documents thereof,” he said.

The judge said that it was saddening to note that the death of Jayalalithaa was still a mystery, “though her photos were then and there published by Apollo Hospitals, showing as if she was talking idly, doing physical exercise, cracking jokes, conducting meetings with the officials of the state government, thereby portraying the Hospitals and others, who have given an untrue story, as villains.”

The judge, while referring to the present case, said Amrutha had not produced any photograph to establish that she had stayed with Jayalalithaa.

Her allegation, that she made several phone calls to Jayalalithaa, cannot be good ground for the court to accept her contention, she said.

Though she said Jayalalithaa used to hug her whenever she saw her, it would only be considered as spoken in the air, merely showing her to have a delusive quality. The court cannot take the same into account for the purpose of granting relief, the judge said.

On Amrutha’s prayer to conduct a DNA test, the judge said it can done only if there are strong grounds, which was not established by producing appropriate documentary evidence.

Her averment that she sent representations to all public authorities, including Supreme Court judges, seeking to cremate Jayalalithaa’s mortal remains as per rites, rituals and customs of Vaishnava Iyengar Brahmin community does not sound good and there is no need for the Judges to look into such representation concerning the private affairs of a person, the judge said.

Though she had contended that her blood samples and Deepa Jayakumar, Jayalalithaa’s niece, have to be sent for DNA matching to ascertain her maternity, there was not an iota of evidence, more particularly, strong and cogent reasons to substantiate her claim, the judge said.

“In the absence of substantial evidence, this court cannot grant the relief sought by her. If the said relief is granted, it will not only open a Pandora’s box, but also the coffin of Jayalalithaa. The court is not inclined to do so,” the judge said.

On Amrutha’s claim, that she was born to Jayalalithaa on August 14, 1980 at her residence , the judge said a photograph produced by the AG at a public function in 1980 showed no sign of Jayalalithaa in an advanced stage of pregnancy.

If Amrutha’s averment were true, then Jayalalithaa would not have actively participated in the Filmfare Award function in Chennai on July 6 1980, he said.

Referring to the November 1, 1971 will executed by Sandya, the mother of Jayalalithaa, the judge said that a reading of the will would make it very clear that she had only two children, Jayakumar and Jayalalithaa.

There was no mention about Amrutha’s foster mother, late Shylaja, in the will, the judge said.

Also, it was to be noted that Amrutha had not filed any case before any court for conduct of a paternity test, the judge said and dismissed the petition.

-(NAV, Inputs: Agencies)

Leave a Reply



Related Articles