The Allahabad High Court has held that a DNA test to determine the paternity of a child cannot be ordered as a routine measure in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The Court rejected a husband’s attempt to question the paternity of a child born during the subsistence of marriage, observing that such a request can be entertained only in rare situations where it is conclusively shown that there was no possibility of cohabitation between the spouses at the relevant time. The decision came in a case where the husband challenged the child’s legitimacy, asserting that he had no access to his wife during the period when conception would have occurred.
According to the case records, the parties were married in April 2008, and the husband claimed that the wife stayed at the matrimonial home for merely one week before returning to her parental home. He asserted that the child, born in December 2012, could not be his biological daughter. The husband further claimed that there had been no cohabitation between the couple since May 2011 and sought a direction for a DNA test during proceedings initiated by the wife under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. The application was rejected by the Magistrate, and the appellate court upheld the decision. Aggrieved, the husband filed a criminal revision before the High Court.
The High Court examined the reasoning of the courts below and noted that the presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act is a strong one, declaring that a child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage is conclusively presumed to be legitimate unless it is proved that the husband had no access to the wife at the relevant time. The Court emphasized that this presumption cannot be lightly displaced based on mere allegations or assertions. It reiterated that courts must be slow in directing DNA tests because such tests carry the potential to cause severe emotional and social consequences for the child and family. Only in exceptional cases, where the facts clearly demonstrate that there was absolutely no opportunity for the spouses to cohabit, can the presumption be questioned.
The High Court found that the husband had failed to establish complete non-access. His statements regarding the wife’s residence at her parental home were not supported by evidence that would eliminate all possibility of their meeting or cohabiting during the period when conception could have occurred. The courts below had already evaluated the evidence and were satisfied that the husband’s claims were insufficient to rebut the legal presumption. The High Court observed that granting a DNA test in such circumstances would effectively allow every husband in a domestic dispute to challenge the legitimacy of a child on vague or unsubstantiated grounds, which the law does not permit.
The Court also noted that proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act concern protection of the aggrieved woman and her child, and not determination of paternity as an independent issue. Introducing such disputes in these proceedings would unnecessarily delay relief and burden the litigation with collateral controversies. The High Court affirmed that the purpose of the Act is to provide immediate and effective remedies to protect women from domestic violence, and not to serve as a forum for speculative or malicious challenges to paternity.
The Court referred to guiding principles laid down in earlier judicial decisions, which stress that DNA tests should not become tools for harassment or misuse. It reiterated that the dignity and welfare of the child must remain paramount and that the law protects a child born during a valid marriage from avoidable stigma. The High Court therefore dismissed the revision petition and upheld the orders of the Magistrate and the Sessions Court, confirming that the refusal to direct a DNA test was justified and in accordance with law.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.