Man Admitting Physical Relationship With Child's Mother Not Conclusive Proof Of Paternity, Doesn't Justify DNA Test: Karnataka High Court

A single judge bench of Justice Lalitha Kanneganti observed:

“In the present case, the petitioner admits that he had a physical relationship with the mother but denies that he is the biological father. The admission is relevant but cannot be treated as conclusive proof of paternity. A relationship between two persons does not, by itself, establish that the child born to the woman was fathered by the man concerned. The court must therefore determine the disputed relationship on legally admissible evidence.”

The Court further held that before directing DNA testing, the Family Court must examine the other available evidence, including the circumstances surrounding the relationship, the child's birth and any acknowledgment of parentage.

“The circumstances concerning the period of the admitted relation, the birth of the child, any acknowledgment of parentage and other relevant evidence would have a bearing upon the inquiry. Only if such evidence was insufficient to resolve a dispute, would the necessity of a DNA examination arise,” it observed.

The Court also emphasised that the welfare of the child and the need to secure maintenance cannot by themselves justify ordering a DNA test without examining its necessity and proportionality.

“The child's need for maintenance establishes the importance of deciding the claim expeditiously. It does not necessarily establish that the claim is decided only through scientific testing,” the Court said.

The observations were made while allowing a petition filed by a 56-year-old man challenging a Family Court order directing him and a minor child to provide blood samples for a DNA test to determine their biological relationship.

The direction was issued on an application filed under Section 45 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, in proceedings seeking maintenance for the minor child.

The Family Court had ordered the examination after considering circumstances including the petitioner's admission of a physical relationship with the child's mother, his alleged acknowledgment of and interactions with the child, financial contributions, handwritten assurances and his conduct over several years.

Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that DNA testing could not be ordered as a matter of course without establishing a strong prima facie case.

He further argued that a similar application for DNA testing had earlier been rejected by a civil court in a suit concerning immovable property. Since that order had attained finality, he claimed that the Family Court could not entertain another application seeking the same relief.

Examining this contention, the High Court held that an order refusing DNA examination cannot necessarily be equated with a final adjudication of paternity.

It explained that a court may refuse DNA testing because the evidence already available is sufficient, the request is premature, or the circumstances do not justify interference with the privacy of the person concerned.

“Rejection of such an application does not invariably amount to a finding that the alleged biological relationship does not exist. Where the issue of paternity has been conclusively adjudicated between the parties and the determination has attained finality, the principle of res judicata may prevent its reconsideration,” the Court observed.

It further held that where an earlier order merely declined a particular mode of proof without determining paternity, the necessity of scientific examination in subsequent proceedings must be considered independently.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, which emphasised the need to examine existing evidence and the statutory presumption of legitimacy before directing DNA testing.

It noted that where a child is born during the subsistence of a valid marriage, the statutory presumption of legitimacy cannot be displaced merely by alleging that the mother had a physical relationship with another man.

The relevant inquiry in such cases concerns non-access between the spouses during the period when the child could have been conceived.

The High Court observed that the applicability of this presumption in the present case would depend on the mother's marital status during the relevant period and other foundational facts.

It also clarified that DNA examination is neither prohibited in every case involving disputed paternity nor permissible merely because paternity is denied. Its necessity must be established in the circumstances of each case.

Child Born Outside Marriage Entitled To Maintenance

The High Court further observed that Section 125(1)(b) CrPC and the corresponding Section 144(1)(b) BNS, recognise the entitlement of both legitimate and illegitimate minor children, who are unable to maintain themselves, to claim maintenance from their fathers.

The Court said that the law does not distinguish between children born within marriage and those born outside marriage for recognising their entitlement to maintenance under these provisions.

“The obligation of a father toward his child does not depend on whether he was married to the mother. A child cannot be denied financial support merely because the relationship between the parties did not have the sanction of marriage,” it observed.

However, the Court clarified that recognising a child's statutory entitlement to maintenance does not dispense with the requirement of establishing that the person from whom maintenance is sought is legally responsible for the child.

It held that the child's entitlement and the liability of the person from whom maintenance is sought are distinct matters. While the former is recognised by statute, the latter must be determined on the basis of facts and evidence.

Right To Privacy Under Article 21

The petitioner also challenged the direction for DNA testing on the ground that it violated his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The High Court observed that DNA examination involves collecting and analysing biological material capable of revealing sensitive genetic information, thereby directly engaging an individual's rights to privacy and bodily autonomy.

“The fact that he has accepted the physical relationship does not amount to consent for a DNA examination or surrender of his constitutional rights. At the same time, the petitioner cannot claim absolute immunity from the scientific examination merely by invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the Court said.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Sharda v. Dharampal, the Court noted that medical examinations may be directed in appropriate circumstances, provided sufficient material exists to justify such directions.

It further observed that the right to privacy requires any interference with bodily autonomy to satisfy the principles of legitimacy, necessity and proportionality.

“The exercise involves balancing the rights of both individuals rather than treating either interest as automatically overriding the other. The trial Court has not addressed the petitioner's constitutional objection through this balancing exercise. Merely observing that the welfare of the child is paramount does not answer whether the proposed examination is necessary and proportionate,” the Court held.

The High Court found that although the Family Court was justified in recognising the relevance of disputed paternity to the maintenance proceedings, it had failed to undertake the necessary inquiry before ordering DNA testing.

The Court observed that the Family Court had principally relied on the child's welfare, the need for maintenance and the petitioner's admission of a physical relationship with the mother.

While these considerations were relevant, the Court held that they did not establish the necessity of DNA testing without first assessing the other available evidence. It concluded that the Family Court's reasoning did not satisfy the requirements of evidentiary necessity and proportionality laid down by the Supreme Court.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Family Court's order directing DNA examination and remanded the application for fresh consideration.

The Family Court was directed to examine the effect of the earlier civil proceedings, the applicability of the statutory presumption of legitimacy, the other evidence available to determine paternity, and the necessity of DNA testing.

“If scientific examination is found necessary, the Family Court shall record reasons showing that the dispute cannot be adequately resolved by other evidence and that the proposed intrusion upon privacy is proportionate to the legitimate object of the proceedings,” the High Court directed.

Appearance: Advocate RAVINSON M for Petitioner.

Advocates MITHUN U, SHUBHASRI M.V, USHA REDDY K.P, for Respondent.