HP High Court: DNA tests not routine in paternity disputes, child's dignity paramount

Declining a DNA test in a prolonged matrimonial and paternity dispute, the Himachal Pradesh high court has held that a child's dignity and identity cannot be jeopardised merely to satisfy allegations of infidelity, as it is always open to the husband to prove the wife's adulterous conduct through other evidence.

Justice Romesh Verma emphasised that scientific tests like DNA examinations cannot be permitted as routine tools in marital litigation, especially when such tests risk stigmatising children born during a subsisting relationship.

The court upheld the order of the Family Court, Chamba, which rejected an application filed by the petitioner seeking DNA testing of three children to dispute their paternity.

"Scrutiny, particularly when concerning matters of infidelity, can be harsh and can eviscerate a person's reputation and standing in society. Usually in cases concerning legitimacy, it is the child's dignity and privacy that have to be protected," the court underlined.

The court added that the social stigma attached to an illegitimate child often extends to the parents, leading to unwarranted scrutiny over alleged infidelity.

Justice Verma observed that the Supreme Court has also held that compelling a person to undergo a DNA test amounts to intrusion into an individual's private life and exposes it to public scrutiny.

The court emphasised that under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, there is a strong presumption regarding the legitimacy of children born during a valid marriage unless non-access is conclusively established.

Referring to several Supreme Court judgments, the court held that DNA testing cannot be permitted as a "roving inquiry" or to stigmatise children and women.

Avoiding maintenance payment

The high court observed that the petitioner had filed the application for a DNA test in an attempt to wriggle out of paying maintenance awarded by the lower courts.

The petitioner filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the woman was not his legally wedded wife. He claimed that the woman was already married to another man and, therefore, any alleged marriage with him was void in law. He alleged that the woman had earlier identified the other man as her husband during a medical visit and that the three children were born while she was residing separately at her parental home.

The woman contested the claims and maintained that she and the petitioner had lived together as husband and wife for several years according to local customs. She stated that the children were born out of the wedlock and that maintenance had already been awarded in earlier court proceedings, which was upheld by appellate courts.

Finding no evidence proving lack of access between the parties, the high court dismissed the petition with costs.