Paternity Dispute: DNA test ought not be done on casual basis and merely on the basis of bald statement of the Applicant as it effects the right to privacy of the parties as well as have devastating effect on the child.

The Single Judge Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur in Mahendra Vs. Mamta @ Guddi bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7839/2019 vide its judgment dated 23.05.2019 held that Courts, while considering the application for DNA test, should be cautious enough and should not allow the same on bald statements of applicant. The Courts should exercise its discretion only after balancing the interests of the parties and on due consideration as to whether the DNA test is eminently needed for just decision in the matter.

Challenge

The factual matrix of this case is that the Petitioner moved an application before the Trial Court Judge demanding DNA test to be conducted of his son, Jasdeep born to his wife on the ground that he got sonography of his wife done during her pregnancy from one Sir Ivan Stedeford Hospital, Ambattur, Chennai and the reports mentioned that his wife was 35 weeks and 06 days pregnant as on 13.09.2017 and accordingly, he calculated the date of conceiving to be before the date of his marriage with his wife which was 05.02.2017. It was therefore his submission that his wife was pregnant prior to the date of marriage and therefore, the child is not his child.

On the other hand, the child Respondent wife denied the averments of the Petitioner except that the marriage was performed on 05.02.2017. She further submitted that there is no report from the hospital where she had been undertaking   the treatment and the report submitted by the Petitioner is fictitious report. She also submitted that she is ready to get the DNA test done.

The Trial Court rejected the application of the Petitioner on the ground that the parties have been staying as husband and wife and the marriage was still subsisting, child born from his wife would be presumed to be his son under Section 112, Indian Evidence Act, 1986 and as the son was born during the subsistence of the marriage therefore the son has to be given the status of son and there is no reason to call for DNA test of a child.

Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the Petitioner moved the instant petition challenging the order of the Trial Court.

Held

The High Court, citing judgments of the Apex Court, set aside the reasoning of the Trial Court for rejecting the application for DNA test thereby citing Section 112 of the Evidence Act and stated that the presumption drawn by the Trial Court under Section 112 of the Evidence Act is not correct when the report was showing that the date of conceiving was before the date of marriage. The Court further held that the Petitioner was, however, yet to prove the authenticity of the report issued by Sir Ivan Stedeford Hospital, Ambattur, Chennai. DNA Test cannot be ordered to be conducted merely based on bald statement of the applicant and he has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt about his non-access to his wife during the entire period. DNA test ought not be ordered as a matter of course and the Courts should, while deciding the application, check whether there is any imminent need to conduct such DNA test and whether such test would result in harming the status of the minor in any form. The court further expressed their concern regarding non- existence of any law by legislatures pertaining to this issue. The Application of the Petitioner was rejected, however, on a different ground.