The Jharkhand High Court has refused to interfere with a family court's decision rejecting a husband's request for a DNA test of a child in an ongoing matrimonial dispute. The Court held that a DNA test cannot be ordered merely because allegations of adultery have been made. A husband seeking such a direction must first establish a strong prima facie case, including clear pleadings that he had no access to his wife during the period when the child could have been conceived.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a matrimonial suit filed by the husband seeking divorce on the ground of adultery. He claimed that after his marriage in July 2000, he had moved to Surat for work in January 2001 and remained there until April 2002. According to him, when he returned, he found his wife in an advanced stage of pregnancy. He later sought a DNA test of the child, contending that he was not the biological father.
The Family Court, however, rejected the application in December 2011. Challenging that order, the husband approached the Jharkhand High Court through a writ petition.
Court's Observations
Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary examined the pleadings in the divorce petition and found that although the husband had stated he was working in Surat during the relevant period, he had not specifically pleaded that there was "non-access" between him and his wife.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
The Court observed that merely stating residence in another city is not enough to rebut the legal presumption regarding a child born during a valid marriage.
Quoting settled legal principles, the bench observed:
“A DNA test can be directed only where a strong prima facie case is made out and the husband establishes non-access so as to rebut the presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.”
The Court further noted that the husband introduced the plea of never cohabiting with his wife only while seeking the DNA test, but such an assertion was absent from the original divorce petition.
Privacy Rights of the Child Considered
The High Court also took into account that the child, who was around eight years old when the DNA application was filed, had become an adult during the pendency of the proceedings.
The bench held that once the child attained majority, the mother could no longer consent to a DNA test on his behalf. Since the child was not a party to the case and had not been impleaded even after attaining adulthood, directing a DNA test at this stage would not be appropriate.
The Court emphasized that courts must remain conscious of a child's privacy and identity rights while considering requests for DNA testing. It observed:
“Children are not to become the focal point of the battle between spouses, and DNA testing cannot be ordered as a matter of routine.”
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents
The High Court referred to several Supreme Court decisions governing DNA testing in matrimonial disputes. It noted that while scientific evidence may be relevant in appropriate cases, courts must exercise caution before directing such tests.
The judgment particularly relied on the principle that DNA testing should be ordered only in exceptional circumstances where it is indispensable for resolving the dispute and where the legal requirements, including proof of non-access, are properly pleaded and supported.
Court's Decision
After examining the pleadings and the applicable legal principles, the High Court concluded that the Family Court had committed no error in rejecting the husband's application for DNA testing.
The Court found that the husband had failed to lay the necessary factual foundation by specifically pleading non-access during the relevant period. In the absence of such pleadings and considering the child's attainment of majority, no interference with the Family Court's order was warranted.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order refusing the request for a DNA test.
Case Details
Case Title: L. K. M. v. F. D.
Case Number: W.P. (C) No. 576 of 2012
Judge: Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Decision Date: 29 June 2026
-300x169.webp)
