Child Cannot be Used as Pawn to prove Adultery: HC refuses DNA Test plea in divorce dispute

Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court examined whether a husband could compel DNA testing of his children in a matrimonial dispute to substantiate allegations against his wife. The issue brought into sharp focus a crucial legal question, whether the right to a fair trial can outweigh a child’s right to identity and dignity when paternity is questioned. The Court’s scrutiny ultimately turned on balancing the pursuit of truth in litigation with the need to shield children from potential social and psychological harm.

The case stemmed from a divorce proceeding under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, where the husband, alleging desertion, sought a direction for DNA testing of his two children to establish that they were not born out of wedlock. The trial court declined this request, noting the stigma and adverse consequences such a test could have on the children.

Aggrieved, the husband approached the High Court, contending that DNA testing was essential to prove his case and that denial of such evidence compromised his right to a fair trial. The wife, however, opposed the plea by relying on settled legal principles, arguing that courts must exercise caution in ordering DNA tests, particularly where it may seriously impact the child’s dignity and legal status.

The Court firmly sided with the principle of child welfare over evidentiary expediency, reiterating that DNA testing cannot be ordered as a matter of routine. Drawing from Supreme Court precedents, the Court emphasised that “the child cannot be used as a pawn to show that the mother… was living in adultery,” and stressed that disputes between spouses cannot justify compromising the rights of a third party, the child.

It further noted that even if allegations of adultery were assumed, the husband must establish them through other evidence rather than subjecting the children to intrusive testing. Emphasising the strong presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, the Court held that no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant such a direction.

Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with costs of ₹3,000.

Case Title: X Vs. Y

Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No.3393 of 2025

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao

Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. M.M.M. Krishna Sanapala

Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Arrabolu Sai Naveen

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com