The Madras High Court has refused to order a DNA test in a long-running domestic violence dispute, holding that the husband failed to establish a strong prima facie case to question his son's paternity. Justice Shamim Ahmed also imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the husband, finding that the proceedings were intended to humiliate his wife and damage her reputation.
Background
In Crl.RC(MD) No. 2340 of 2026, the husband challenged a December 1, 2023 order of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kalasapakkam, Tiruvannamalai, which rejected his application for a DNA test.
The couple married on November 24, 2008, and had a son, Kalaiarasan. Their matrimonial dispute led the wife to initiate domestic violence proceedings on August 12, 2013. The matter was subsequently transferred and renumbered as DVC No. 6 of 2020.
In 2023, the husband sought a DNA test under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, claiming that the child was not his biological son. He argued that there had been no access between the couple during the relevant period and that scientific testing was necessary to establish the truth.
The trial court rejected the request because there was no material to support the claim that the husband and wife had no access to each other when the child could have been conceived. He subsequently approached the High Court in a criminal revision petition.
Justice Shamim Ahmed examined the legal presumption concerning a child's legitimacy, the evidentiary requirements for ordering DNA testing, and the privacy interests of the individuals involved.
The Court referred to Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which provides a presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage, subject to the statutory exception concerning the absence of access between the spouses.
The judgment emphasised that a husband seeking a DNA test must first present material establishing a strong prima facie case. A bare allegation questioning paternity cannot, by itself, justify an intrusive scientific examination.
The Court observed:
"The language of the said provision makes it clear that there exists a strong presumption that the husband is the father of the child borne by his wife during the subsistence of their marriage. The object of this principle is to prevent any unwarranted enquiry into the paternity of a child."
The judge also considered the Supreme Court's ruling in Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (2025), which reiterated that DNA tests should not be ordered routinely and require careful judicial scrutiny.
On the facts, the Court noted that the husband had waited until 2023 to seek testing despite the domestic violence proceedings having begun in 2013. He offered no satisfactory explanation for the delay and produced no documentary evidence supporting his claim of non-access.
The Court further observed:
"The question whether a DNA Test should be permitted on the child is to be analysed through the prism of the child and not through the prism of the parents. The child cannot be used as a pawn to show that the mother of the child was living in adultery. It is always open to the husband to prove by other evidence the adulterious conduct of the wife, but the child's right to identity should not be allowed to be sacrificed."
The Court held that DNA testing could not be used as a shortcut to establish alleged infidelity and that the child's right to identity and the wife's privacy had to be considered. It found that the husband had failed to establish sufficient legal grounds for the test.
The Madras High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition and confirmed the trial court's order refusing DNA testing. Justice Shamim Ahmed directed the husband to pay ₹50,000 in costs within six weeks, to be deposited in the domestic violence case and released to the wife.
The Court further directed that the amount be recovered in accordance with law if the husband failed to deposit it within the stipulated period.
