No DNA test as ‘matter of routine’: Karnataka High Court protects minor’s identity in property dispute

“It is a trite law that the court can order a DNA test only after cogent and reliable evidence is led to prove the illegitimacy, and the same cannot be ordered as a matter of course,” the court said on April 23.

Court’s findings

• The affidavit filed in support of the application indicates that the deceased was a bachelor and that the claim of the woman and her daughter regarding their status as wife and daughter is false.

Justice Vijaykumar A Patil noted that trial court rightly concluded that petitioners failed to establish a strong prima facie case for ordering a DNA test.

• It is to be noticed that a perusal of the affidavit does not indicate a prima facie case warranting a direction for a DNA test, nor does it specify the person with whom the DNA of the plaintiff is sought to be compared.
• In the absence of such specific averments, the trial court rightly concluded that the petitioners failed to establish a strong prima facie case for ordering a DNA test.
• It is also to be noticed that the trial court has considered the decision of the Supreme Court and concluded that a direction for a DNA test cannot be issued as a matter of routine.
• The respondents/plaintiffs have placed sufficient material on record before the trial court to substantiate their claim concerning their relationship with the man and the relief sought in the plaint.
• The said documents have not been disproved by the petitioners/defendants so as to justify the ordering of a DNA test.

Case of property dispute and demand for DNA test

The case arose from a partition suit initiated by a woman and her minor daughter, who claimed a share in the properties belonging to a man who had passed away. The petitioners contested the suit, alleging that the deceased was a bachelor and that the minor was not his biological offspring.

Seeking to disprove the relationship, the petitioners moved an application under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, requesting a court-ordered DNA test. When the trial court in Nelamangala rejected this request in 2022, the petitioners approached the high court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Supreme Court’s ruling on DNA test

Observing that scientific reasoning will prevail over “conclusive proof under law”, the Supreme Court has ruled that a man cannot pay maintenance for a child if the paternity test fails to prove his fatherhood.

Recently, a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh was hearing an appeal of a woman against an order denying maintenance to a child after a DNA test disproved her estranged husband’s paternity.

“In this case, the DNA test has been conducted, the appellant consented to the same and has not even once disputed the conclusion thereof. It has, in other words, attained finality…. no error could be pointed out by the appellant in the High Court’s decision denying the grant of maintenance to her daughter,” the bench noted while dismissing the woman’s plea on April 21.

The bench relied on precedents, including those that recognised that scientific truth must prevail over legal presumptions when the two are in conflict.

The court noted that Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was enacted at a time when modern scientific tools like DNA testing were not available, and while it continues to serve the purpose of protecting children from stigma, it cannot override conclusive scientific findings.