The Himachal Pradesh High Court has declined a request for a DNA test in a long-standing matrimonial and paternity dispute, ruling that a child's dignity and identity cannot be jeopardized merely to satisfy allegations of infidelity. The court stated that the husband is always free to prove the wife's adulterous conduct through other evidence.
Court's Emphasis on Child Protection
Justice Romesh Verma emphasized that scientific tests like DNA examinations cannot be permitted as routine tools in marital litigation, especially when such tests risk stigmatizing children born during a subsisting relationship. The court upheld the order of the Family Court in Chamba, which had rejected an application by the petitioner seeking DNA testing of three children to dispute their paternity.
The court underlined, "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." It added that the social stigma attached to an illegitimate child often extends to the parents, leading to unwarranted scrutiny over alleged infidelity.
Legal Precedents and Evidence Act
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 emphasized 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 stigmatize children and women.
Petitioner's Attempt to Avoid Maintenance
The high court observed that the petitioner had filed the application for a DNA test in an attempt to avoid paying maintenance awarded by the lower courts. The petitioner had 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.
Dismissal of Petition
Finding no evidence proving lack of access between the parties, the high court dismissed the petition with costs.
