DEHRADUN: The Uttarakhand High Court has upheld a family court order rejecting a husband's request for a DNA examination of a minor child in a matrimonial dispute, holding that such a direction cannot be granted routinely and that the law strongly protects the legitimacy, dignity, and privacy of a child born during a valid marriage.
A division bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Pankaj Purohit dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant had failed to lay the legal foundation required for DNA testing and that the balance of interests clearly favoured protection of the child's rights.
The appeal was filed by a Nainital resident against an order dated December 16, 2025, passed by the principal judge, family court, Nainital. In proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the husband had alleged matrimonial misconduct, including adultery, against his wife and, during the pendency of the case, moved an application seeking DNA examination of the minor child to support the allegation.
The appellant's counsel argued that the family court had misunderstood the purpose of the application. "The husband is not seeking any declaration on the child's paternity and does not intend to disturb the child's legal status," he argued, adding that the request was limited to obtaining scientific evidence to substantiate the plea of adultery, particularly when direct evidence was rarely available in such cases. He relied on Supreme Court decisions in Dipawita Roy vs Ronobroto Roy and Ivan Rathinam vs Milan Joseph.
The High Court held that the governing position under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act remained decisive. "Section 112 creates a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for a child born during the continuance of a valid marriage," the court said, adding that the presumption could be displaced only by proving non-access between spouses at the relevant time.
"The burden to establish non-access lies heavily on the person seeking to rebut legitimacy," the High Court said. The bench found that the appellant had neither specifically pleaded nor attempted to establish non-access during the relevant period, and said the statutory presumption therefore remained intact.
"Permitting DNA examination in such circumstances would undermine the protection under Section 112 and amount to an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy and dignity of the minor child," the court said, adding that these rights were protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Holding that DNA testing could not be ordered as a matter of routine and could be directed only in exceptional circumstances, the High Court concluded that the family court had committed no illegality or perversity in rejecting the application. The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.
