The Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru Bench) has set aside a Family Court order that directed a man and a minor child to provide blood samples for a DNA test in maintenance proceedings, and remanded the application for fresh consideration. The Court clarified the conditions under which courts can order DNA examination in disputed-paternity cases.
The Court also held that child’s welfare and maintenance needs establish the importance of deciding the claim expeditiously, but they do not, without more, establish that DNA testing is necessary. It observed that admitting a relationship does not amount to consent to DNA testing or surrender of Article 21 rights. Equally, Article 21 does not grant absolute immunity from a properly justified scientific examination.
Briefly, a petition was filed challenging the Family Court’s direction requiring a minor child and the alleged father to provide blood samples for a DNA test in proceedings seeking maintenance for the child. The Family Court had directed the test principally on the basis of the child’s welfare, the need for maintenance and the admitted relationship.
The petitioner admitted having a physical relationship with the mother but denied biological paternity. He also relied on an earlier civil court order rejecting a similar request for DNA testing.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Lalitha Kanneganti observed that both legitimate and illegitimate minor children are entitled to claim maintenance, subject to the statutory requirements. However, the child’s entitlement to maintenance and the alleged father’s liability are distinct questions. An admission of a physical relationship is relevant evidence, but it is not conclusive proof of paternity. The Family Court must first examine whether the alleged parental relationship can be established through other available evidence before directing DNA testing.
The Court further explained that an earlier refusal to order a DNA test does not necessarily amount to a final determination of paternity. Where the statutory presumption of legitimacy applies, an admitted relationship with another man cannot be used to bypass it; the question of non-access between the spouses must be examined.
