The Uttarakhand High Court has recently rejected a request from a man seeking a DNA test for his minor child to validate claims of his wife’s infidelity, ruling that such an action would violate the child’s privacy and dignity.
A bench comprising Justices Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Pankaj Purohit overturned an earlier decision made by a family court that had denied the husband’s application for a DNA examination. In their ruling dated April 2, the justices emphasized that granting the request would intrude on the child’s fundamental rights to privacy and dignity, as protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The husband had initiated proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act in a Nainital family court, alleging various forms of matrimonial misconduct, including adultery. While these proceedings were ongoing, he filed a petition requesting permission to conduct a DNA test on the minor child to support his accusations against his wife.
After the family court denied this request, the husband appealed to the high court, expressing dissatisfaction with the lower court’s ruling.
The appellant’s legal representative argued that the husband was not seeking a declaration regarding the child’s paternity and had no intention of altering the child’s legal status or rights. The counsel maintained that the sole purpose of the DNA test request was to gather scientific evidence to back the adultery claims.
Additionally, the argument was made that in cases of marital disputes, especially those involving allegations of infidelity, direct evidence is often scarce, necessitating reliance on scientific methods.
The court referenced Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, which is founded on the principle that a child born during a valid marriage is presumed to be the legitimate offspring of the husband unless proven otherwise. This section aims to shield children from the societal repercussions of illegitimacy.
In its decision, the court underscored the importance of balancing the rights of all parties involved, particularly concerning the welfare, dignity, and privacy of the child, before authorizing any DNA testing.
Furthermore, the justices noted that DNA tests should not be ordered as a routine procedure or merely upon request from one party. They cautioned that such a direction could potentially undermine the child’s legitimacy by definitively establishing non-paternity, necessitating careful consideration by the courts when faced with similar requests.
The court concluded that the husband’s attempt to obtain a DNA test without first disproving the presumption of legitimacy could not be legally justified. They asserted that the interests in this case favored safeguarding the child’s legitimacy over allowing an invasive inquiry through DNA testing.
As a result, the court upheld the family court’s decision to reject the husband’s application and dismissed the appeal.
