Can't Direct Adult Daughter's Paternity Test Without Consent, Infringes Right To Privacy & Carries Societal Consequences: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has said that family court cannot direct DNA test to determine paternity of alleged adult daughter without taking her consent as it infringes her right to privacy and may carry significant societal consequences. The petitioner had challenged an order allowing the alleged wife's plea for DNA test of her daughter to determine her paternity. The application was filed in...
The Gujarat High Court has said that family court cannot direct DNA test to determine paternity of alleged adult daughter without taking her consent as it infringes her right to privacy and may carry significant societal consequences.
The petitioner had challenged an order allowing the alleged wife's plea for DNA test of her daughter to determine her paternity. The application was filed in the plaintiff's pending maintenance suit before the trial court in 1994 under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act where she claimed to be wife of the petitioner and had sought maintenance for herself and her minor daughter from petitioner.
Years later the plaintiff filed an application seeking a direction to the husband to undergo a blood test for the purpose of a DNA examination, so as to determine the paternity of minor girl, and further seeking a direction that the husband remain present at the Forensic Science Laboratory, Gandhinagar to facilitate the DNA test.
The Family Court directed the husband to appear before the Laboratory to provide a blood sample for DNA test. The laboratory was directed to forward the sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Gandhinagar, for DNA examination. The Family Court further directed that, in the event the husband failed to remain present before the laboratory and provide the blood sample, an adverse inference would be drawn against him.
Justice JC Doshi noted that the application to subject the parties–including Respondent No. 2 who is a major now, to a DNA test arises in a suit for maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. The court noted that Respondent No. 2 had since become a major, has married, and has lost her right to get maintenance.
"The plaintiff No.1 had not adduced any evidence of her marriage to the defendant prior to filing the application. Apt to note that the direction for the DNA test was made without obtaining the consent of Respondent No. 2. In view of that, her right to privacy is accordingly under threat, having been ordered without her consent. It is thus, observed that such a direction infringes the right to privacy of the individual and may carry significant societal consequences" the court said.
The court said that the family court instead of applying the principles R. Rajendran Vs. Kamar Nisha and others, [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1086]–where Supreme Court laid down the principles on DNA profiling, including that court should not direct parties to undergo DNA test as a matter of course or in a routine manner–had directed the parties to undergo the DNA test in a routine manner, thereby placing Respondent No. 2's right to privacy at stake, that too without taking her consent.
For context, the plaintiff in her suit claimed to be the legally wedded wife of the husband. Respondent No. 2 was fifteen months old at the time of filing of the suit, and is stated to have been born out of the conjugal relationship between plaintiff No.1 and the defendant. In the course of the suit, plaintiff No.1 also filed an application for interim maintenance, which was granted by the Family Court.
This order was challenged before the High Court, whereby the coordinate Bench dismissed those proceedings and directed the Civil Judge to expeditiously decide the suit and further directed that the suit be disposed of by the end of December 1998. In this background the plaintiff, on 6.1.2010, filed the application seeking DNA test. The family court allowed the application against which the defendant approached the high court.
The high court said that the exercise to decide paternity of respondent No.2 had became redundant as she is now major and married daughter and she now cannot claim maintenance from her father.
Moreover, now practically, no DNA test can be ordered without taking consent of respondent No.2, as result of DNA test has a direct bearing upon respondent No.2's societal status, the court said.
The court allowed the petition and set aside the order directing paternity test. It directed the family court to complete the suit proceedings.
Case title: YESHWANTSINH SHANKARSINH CHAUHAN. v/s MADHUKANTA @ YESHMITA D/O LATE MADHAVSINH RAISINH JADAV & ANR.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8340 of 2012
Appearance: MR RD DAVE(264) for the Petitioner, MR NIRAV THAKKAR for MR BHAVIN J SATWARA(3718) for the Respondents