Recently, the Uttarakhand High Court examined the scope of directing DNA testing in matrimonial disputes, particularly where allegations of adultery are involved. The Court was called upon to balance the need for scientific evidence with the statutory presumption of legitimacy and the constitutional protection of a child’s dignity and privacy. The case raised an important question on whether DNA testing can be permitted merely to support such allegations.
The matter arose from an appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order of the Family Court, Nainital, which had rejected an application seeking DNA examination of a minor child. The appellant-husband had instituted matrimonial proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 alleging adultery against his wife. During the pendency of the proceedings, he moved an application seeking DNA testing of the child with the object of substantiating the allegation of adultery. The Family Court rejected the application on the ground that such a test would amount to determining paternity and could adversely affect the dignity, rights, and future of the minor child. Aggrieved by this rejection, the appellant approached the High Court.
The counsel for the Appellant contended that the impugned order was illegal and based on a misappreciation of the scope of his application. It was argued that he had not sought any declaration regarding the paternity of the child, but only intended to obtain scientific evidence to substantiate his allegation of adultery. He submitted that the Family Court had wrongly assumed that he intended to question the legitimacy of the child or attribute parentage to another person. It was further argued that in matrimonial disputes, particularly those involving allegations of adultery, direct evidence is seldom available and parties often have to rely on circumstantial or scientific evidence such as DNA testing. The appellant also relied on judicial precedents including Dipawita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy and Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, to contend that DNA testing may be permitted in appropriate cases where it is necessary to arrive at the truth.
The Court examined the issue in light of Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and emphasised the strong presumption of legitimacy attached to a child born during a valid marriage. It observed that “Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act is based upon the principle of pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant meaning that ‘the father is he whom the marriage points out’, which seeks to protect children from the social consequences of destitution, bastardy and vagrancy.”
The Court further clarified the limited scope for ordering DNA tests and held that “DNA testing cannot be ordered as a matter of routine or merely on the asking of a party. Such a direction can be issued only in exceptional circumstances where strong prima facie material is available.” Highlighting the consequences, the Court noted that “A direction for DNA examination, if granted, may have the effect of bastardising the child by conclusively determining non-paternity. Therefore, Courts are required to exercise utmost caution and restraint.” On the facts, the Court found the absence of pleadings or proof of non-access and emphasised that permitting DNA testing in such circumstances would undermine the statutory presumption and intrude upon the child’s privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The High Court held that the appellant had failed to establish a case warranting DNA examination and found no illegality in the order of the Family Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the rejection of the DNA test application was upheld.
Case Title: Sunil Singh v. Anju Gupta Singh & Another
Case No.: Appeal From Order No. 25 of 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
Advocate for the Appellant: Adv. Shashi Kant Shandilya and Adv. Vishwaketu Vaidya
Advocate for the Respondent: Not mentioned
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :