Not living continuously with wife cannot be ground for seeking DNA test to confirm child’s paternity: Karnataka High Court

Srinivas acknowledged that he was married, but he argued that the child was not biologically his. He claimed that since the couple had only lived together for a few days and there was no continuous cohabitation, he had doubts about the child’s paternity.

The court noted in its order that DNA tests concerning a child’s paternity should not be mandated by the court as a standard practice or done routinely whenever a request is made. It said it must consider the advantages and disadvantages of such an order, and the test of “eminent need” arises when it becomes impossible for the court to discover the truth without utilising this test.

The bench held, “I am of the opinion that the family court has rightly passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed.”