Karnataka High Court Clarifies Grounds for DNA Tests in Paternity Cases
The Karnataka High Court has made a significant ruling, stating that not living continuously with a wife cannot serve as a basis for seeking a DNA test to confirm a child's paternity. The court emphasized that DNA tests should only be ordered when there is an "eminent need" and it becomes impossible for the court to ascertain the truth without such evidence.
Case Background and Court Decision
In a recent judgment, the Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition filed by a husband, B S Srinivas, who sought to conduct a DNA test on his minor child. This petition was in opposition to an application by his estranged wife for maintenance for herself and their daughter under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Justice Rajesh Rai K upheld a family court order from January 27, rejecting Srinivas's application.
The court noted that Srinivas did not dispute the marital status and acknowledged cohabitation with his wife for a few days. In light of this, the bench concluded that paternity could not be questioned. The couple was married on May 25, 2022, and they have a one-year-old child from the marriage. Following marital disputes, the wife initiated the maintenance proceedings.
Court's Reasoning on DNA Tests
Justice Rai highlighted that DNA tests concerning a child's paternity should not be mandated by courts as a standard practice or done routinely upon request. The court must carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages of such an order. The test of "eminent need" arises only when it becomes impossible for the court to discover the truth without utilizing this method.
Srinivas argued that since the couple had only lived together briefly and without continuous cohabitation, he had doubts about the child's biological paternity. However, the court found this insufficient to warrant a DNA test, stressing that such measures require stronger justification.
Implications and Final Ruling
The bench held that the family court had correctly passed the order, which did not call for any interference. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as lacking merit. This ruling reinforces the principle that DNA tests are not to be used lightly in paternity disputes and underscores the importance of substantial evidence before such invasive procedures are authorized.
This decision serves as a precedent for similar cases, balancing the rights of individuals with the need for judicial prudence in matters of family law and child welfare.
