NEW DELHI: A poor woman sought a DNA test on a man to prove that her daughter was born to him. In 2006, the man agreed to undergo the test but said the woman seeking the medical examination must bear the cost. The woman did not have the money. The trial court and Bombay High Court had dismissed her plea.
Daughter's Fresh Plea
Two decades later, the daughter, after reaching adulthood, moved the Bombay High Court seeking a DNA test of the man and herself in quest of her paternity and said she was ready to bear the expenses of the medical tests. However, the High Court said the judicial orders passed two decades ago have attained finality and cannot be challenged now.
Supreme Court Intervention
The daughter, through advocate Vatsalya Vigya, told a bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Aravind Kumar that in 2006 the petitioner was a minor and now she is an adult and can bear the expenses of the DNA test of herself and the man to prove paternity. The bench issued notice to the man, who is an advocate, and sought his response by September 18.
Background of the Case
The petitioner said her maternal grandfather was working in a colliery in Chandrapur, Maharashtra, and became unfit to work in 2002. To get appointed in his place on compassionate grounds, her mother sought help from an advocate to file a case. The advocate, promising to marry her, established physical relations with her, and because of that she became pregnant, and the petitioner was born in 2003. However, the man refused to keep his promise.
As the biological father refused to acknowledge the relationship with the daughter, the petitioner's mother had moved the court seeking alimony and a DNA test. But with the man refusing to bear the expenses of the DNA test, and the petitioner's mother having no financial wherewithal, the trial court rejected her application in 2006.
Current Legal Battle
In 2023, the petitioner, on attaining majority, filed an application seeking a DNA test of the man and herself to examine paternal relations between them. This was opposed by the advocate. The trial court rejected the plea. She challenged this order before the Bombay High Court, which on April 2 dismissed her plea, saying it would not be proper to reopen the old case now.
The Supreme Court has now sought a response from the man, and the case is set to be heard further.
