Fresh DNA Test Can't Be Denied Over Earlier Report Being Unchallenged, Child's Right To Recognition Of Paternity Prevails: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a fresh DNA test may be directed in exceptional circumstances where a child's right to maintenance and determination of paternity is directly in issue, notwithstanding an earlier DNA report obtained during criminal proceedings. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 135]

In doing so, the Court allowed a mother and her minor daughter's plea seeking a fresh DNA examination, holding that the child's right to identity, maintenance and welfare cannot be foreclosed merely because an earlier DNA report remained unchallenged. 

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa observed:

"The issue involved is not merely a dispute between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.1. The rights of Petitioner No.2, a child claiming maintenance and recognition of paternity, are directly implicated. Since a new scientific test would cause only minor inconvenience, it is better to allow an independent examination so that the dispute can be settled finally and conclusively. A fresh DNA examination conducted by a reputed Central Forensic Laboratory under the supervision of the trial Court would enhance confidence in the process and eliminate any lingering doubts entertained by either side. If the earlier report is indeed correct, the fresh examination would only reaffirm the same. Conversely, if any discrepancy exists, the Court would be equipped with reliable scientific evidence to render a just decision. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to Respondent No.1 by directing such examination. Furthermore, Respondent No.1 did not choose to submit his objections in this matter.”

The petition arose from the rejection of the petitioners' application seeking a fresh DNA test in pending maintenance proceedings. They sought DNA profiling of the mother (Petitioner No. 1), the minor daughter (Petitioner No. 2), and the respondent to conclusively determine the paternity of Petitioner No. 2. 

The petitioners contended that the respondent had denied both the marital relationship and the paternity of the minor child. They argued that although an earlier DNA report obtained during criminal proceedings did not identify the respondent as the biological father, they had consistently questioned its authenticity and reliability.

It was further submitted that the petitioner mother, being an illiterate and vulnerable woman, could not effectively challenge the earlier report or pursue appellate remedies, and therefore sought an independent examination by a Central Forensic Laboratory.

The respondent opposed the plea, contending that the issue of paternity had already attained finality through the earlier DNA report and that the petitioners were merely seeking a second opinion after failing to challenge it. It was further argued that repeated DNA tests would amount to harassment, infringe his right to privacy, and undermine the principle of finality of litigation.

Rejecting the respondent's contention, the Court observed that while DNA tests cannot be ordered routinely, the present case stood on a different footing as the determination of the minor child's paternity formed the very foundation of the maintenance proceedings.

It held that the child was not in a position to independently safeguard her interests during the earlier criminal proceedings and that her rights could not be defeated merely because the earlier DNA report had remained unchallenged. The Court also noted that the petitioners had not sought a fresh examination merely because the earlier result was unfavourable but had raised specific concerns regarding the genuineness and reliability of the earlier report.

Emphasising the paramount importance of the child's rights, the Court observed, “The present case directly concerns the welfare, identity, status, and maintenance rights of Petitioner No.2, a child whose interests require paramount consideration. The request herein cannot be characterized as a roving or fishing inquiry, since the issue of paternity constitutes the very foundation of the maintenance proceedings.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal petition, set aside the trial court's order, and directed the trial court to refer the parties for DNA profiling through an independent Central Forensic Laboratory, complete the process, and dispose of the maintenance proceedings preferably within two months.

Case Title: Gudala Lovalakshmi & Anr. v. Marthi Ramanababu @ Bujji & Anr.

Case No.: Criminal Petition No.10088 of 2022

Counsel for the Petitioners: T.V. Sri Devi

Counsel for the Respondents: Ponnada Sree Vyas; Public Prosecutor (A.P.)

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 135