Recently, the Madras High Court dealt with a case involving the use of DNA testing in legal proceedings. The matter highlighted the balance between science and law, and how courts handle sensitive issues involving privacy and individual rights. It also drew attention to the careful approach required when emerging scientific tools intersect with fundamental legal principles.
HC Bench comprising of Justice Shamim Ahmed expounded that, ".....the Revision Petitioner has not produced a single piece of documentary evidence before this Court to even prima facie support his claim that he is not the biological father of the 2nd Respondent. In the absence of any such evidence, this Court finds it difficult to even presume that a prima facie case exists. As held by the Honourable Supreme Court, DNA tests cannot be ordered merely on vague allegations unless a strong prima facie case is established.”
Brief Facts
The case arose from a dispute between a husband and his former wife concerning the paternity of their minor daughter. The parties were married according to Hindu rites, and a daughter was born to them during the marriage. However, due to matrimonial discord, they began living separately, and the wife subsequently filed a divorce petition before the competent court. The proceedings ended in a mutual divorce after both parties filed a joint memo. Several years later, the wife initiated proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Judicial Magistrate, seeking maintenance for herself and the minor child. During the pendency of this maintenance case, the husband filed an application praying for a DNA test to determine the paternity of the child, asserting that she was not born to him. The Trial Court, however, dismissed the application, holding that there was no necessity to direct a DNA test. Aggrieved by this order, the husband preferred a Criminal Revision Case before the High Court under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to set aside the impugned order.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The counsel for Petitioner contended before the Court that the Respondent had engaged in an illicit relationship with one of his relatives and that the child in question was not his biological offspring. He further submitted that during the earlier divorce proceedings, the wife had herself admitted that the child was not his and had even expressed her willingness to undergo a DNA test to confirm this fact. Despite this, she later filed a maintenance petition containing false statements regarding the child’s paternity. The Petitioner argued that a DNA test was essential to uncover the truth and to prevent him from being subjected to unwarranted financial liability. He maintained that the trial court had erred in dismissing his application without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. According to him, directing a DNA test was both necessary and just, as it would conclusively determine the truth of the matter and prevent irreparable hardship. He therefore prayed that the Court set aside the trial court’s order and permit the conduct of the DNA test in the interest of justice.
Contentions of the Respondents
The counsel for Respondents, on the contrary, opposed the Petitioner’s plea, asserting that the child was born during the subsistence of a valid marriage, thereby attracting the statutory presumption of legitimacy under Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. They submitted that the Petitioner had failed to establish “non-access” between the parties during the period when conception could have occurred, which alone could rebut this presumption. The Respondents also pointed out that the application seeking a DNA test had been filed after an unexplained and inordinate delay of several years since the divorce and after the initiation of the maintenance case, which demonstrated that the move was not bona fide but intended merely to harass the wife and delay the proceedings. They contended that such a request was an invasion of privacy and dignity protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and that forcing a DNA test on the child would have grave psychological and social consequences. Relying on authoritative judgments of the Supreme Court, the respondents argued that DNA tests should not be ordered as a matter of routine and can be directed only where a strong prima facie case of non-access is made out, which was absent in the present case.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that the legal question in this case primarily concerns the use of scientific techniques, specifically the DNA test, for adjudication of the birth status of the respondent. The Court stated that "Accordingly, Law, Science and Technology have a great relevance in our lives. Law and Science encounter each other in many ways. When technology intrudes in the ambit of legal rights, it is checked by law, for example, cybercrimes, in the same manner to protect legal rights and strengthening the evidence with the help of science, cannot be denied.
The Court further observed that “In spite of the verily limitations, it affirms certain attributes also which includes: ''order of court', ''pre-consent of subject' ''no manipulated statements by subject' and ''secure public interest' Thus, there is a tension between desirability of efficient investigation and preservation of individual rights.”
The Bench held that "It infringes fundamental rights under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and also right to privacy and right to health, which are guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
In reference to the above findings, reliance is being placed on Ivan Rathinam Vs Milan Joseph wherein it is clearly held that “DNA tests cannot be directed, unless a strong prima facie case is made out and that such tests should not be ordered as a matter of routine. Courts must be cautious in directing DNA tests, as such orders can have far reaching effects on the dignity and privacy of individuals.”
Additionally, the Bench observed that “By applying the above said principles, laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and the High Court, in the present case, this Court does not find any strong prima facie case to allow the request for DNA testing. Further, the Revision Petitioner has not produced a single piece of documentary evidence before this Court to even prima facie support his claim that he is not the biological father of the 2nd Respondent. In the absence of any such evidence, this Court finds it difficult to even presume that a prima facie case exists. As held by the Honourable Supreme Court, DNA tests cannot be ordered merely on vague allegations unless a strong prima facie case is established.”
The court concluded with these notable observations about the balance between forensic science and individual rights, stating that while science is essential in legal investigations, Courts must carefully guard the constitutional rights and dignity of individuals involved in such proceedings.
The decision of the Court
The Court dismissed the petition seeking a DNA test, finding no strong prima facie case. The petitioner failed to provide any evidence to disprove his access to the mother or to show he was not the biological father. Under Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, a child born during a valid marriage is presumed legitimate unless non-access is proven. DNA tests cannot be ordered on vague allegations or routinely, as they may affect privacy and dignity. Consequently, the criminal revision challenging the lower court’s refusal was dismissed, and the lower court’s order was upheld.
Case Title: ABC V. XYZ
Case No.: CRL.R.C.(MD)No.842 of 2025
Coram: Justice Shamim Ahmed
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. A.K.Manikkam.
Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. Kayal Vizhi
Read Judgement @Latestlaws.com:
