At the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Justice Shamim Ahmed on September 25, 2025, dismissed a husband’s plea seeking a DNA test to challenge the paternity of his minor daughter in a long-pending maintenance dispute. The court strongly emphasized that a child’s right to dignity and identity cannot be compromised for the sake of parental allegations.
Background
The couple had married in March 2007 and divorced in 2012 by mutual consent. Nine years later, in 2021, the former wife filed a petition seeking maintenance for herself and her daughter before the Judicial Magistrate in Palani. In response, the husband filed a petition in 2025 over a decade after the divorce claiming that the child was not born to him and sought a DNA test to prove his contention.
The trial court rejected his request in June 2025, holding that such a test was unnecessary and intrusive. The husband challenged that order before the High Court, arguing that without a DNA examination, he would suffer "irreparable hardship."
Court's Observations
Justice Ahmed examined the detailed legal framework under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, particularly Section 116, which presumes legitimacy for children born within a valid marriage unless the husband can prove non-access.
"The law raises a strong presumption that the husband is the father of the child born during the subsistence of marriage," the judge said, noting that such a principle exists to prevent "unwarranted inquiries into the paternity of a child."
The Court pointed out that the petitioner had not produced a single piece of evidence showing he had no access to his wife during the period of conception. Nor had he provided any convincing explanation for his 12-year silence before suddenly seeking a DNA test.
Citing the Supreme Court’s rulings in Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (2025 INSC 115) and Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023), the judge observed that "DNA tests cannot be ordered as a matter of routine." He reiterated that courts must weigh such requests with extreme caution, as they can affect the dignity and privacy of both the mother and child.
"The question of allowing a DNA test must be seen through the prism of the child, not the parents," Justice Ahmed remarked. "
A child cannot be used as a pawn to establish that the mother was living in adultery."
The bench went further, stressing that the husband’s petition appeared intended to "humiliate and defame" his former wife and delay the maintenance proceedings.
Decision
Finding no merit in the revision, the High Court upheld the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Palani, and dismissed the husband’s plea.
In a firm conclusion, Justice Ahmed stated:
"The long and unexplained delay of nearly twelve years, absence of any documentary evidence, the legal presumption of legitimacy, and the privacy concerns involved-all weigh heavily against the claim of the petitioner."
Accordingly, the court dismissed the Criminal Revision Case (Crl.R.C.(MD) No. 842 of 2025) and closed the connected miscellaneous petition, leaving no order as to costs.
Case Title: K vs. M
Petitioner's Counsel: Mr. A.K. Manikkam
Respondents Counsel: Ms. Kayal Vizhi for Mr. T. Thirumurugan
