The Karnataka High Court on Monday held that a DNA test to ascertain paternity should be done in accordance with the law and not “as a frolicsome act”. This observation came in a case where a man appealed against a civil court decision allowing a DNA test on him and his parents despite his and his mother’s objection.
In his order, a single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that according to multiple high court and Supreme Court judgments, there is a presumption of the legitimacy of a child born in a lawful marriage, per the doctrine of “pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant”. The Latin phrase means that “the father is he whom marriage indicates”.
In the original case, a civil judge in Channapatna district allowed a DNA test after the petitioner’s brothers sought it in the context of a partition suit.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the parents had been married with several children and that such an application for a DNA test could not be filed, as it would violate his fundamental rights. As per the Evidence Act, the brothers would have to have proved non-access between the parents, the counsel further argued, adding that no plea had been made to prove this.
The opposing counsel representing the brothers said that their father had undergone a vasectomy seven years before the petitioner’s birth in 1986 and that he could therefore not be their father’s son.
The bench added that demonstrable non-access between the parents had to be pleaded and proved. Non-access means the absence of opportunity for sexual intercourse.
Against the earlier order granting a DNA test, the bench stated, “There was no imminent need for conducting a DNA test; the order ignores the purport of Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, and presumption of paternity is given a go-bye. No material is placed before the Court depicting non-access at the time of birth. In the absence of any pleading of the kind, the concerned Court has treated the DNA test as a frolicsome act and ordered as a matter of course. Right to privacy and dignity is lost sight of.”
Story continues below this ad
The high court thus quashed the earlier order allowing a DNA test.