Mere Claim Of Short, Discontinuous Cohabitation Not Enough To Seek DNA Test Of Child: Karnataka High Court Rejects Husband's Plea

The Karnataka High Court rejected a man's plea seeking DNA test of the child born to his wife suspecting the child's paternity on the ground that they did not cohabit for a long time. In doing so the court said that DNA test on paternity of a child can't be ordered as a matter of course, finding that the petitioner did not dispute that he had cohabited with the wife and also not disputed their marital status. The marriage between petitioner husband and respondent wife was solemnized on 25.05.2022; a child was born who is around 1 years old. Subsequently, due to matrimonial dispute, the wife filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. In the said case, the petitioner filed an application under Sections 39 and 116 of BSA read with Section 12 of Family Courts Act, to conduct DNA test of the child which was rejected by the family court. Against this the husband moved the high court. Justice Rajesh Rai K in his order said:"DNA test in a matter relating to paternity of a child should not be directed by the Court as a matter of course or in a routine manner, whenever such a request is made. The Court has to consider diverse aspects including presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act i.e., Section 116 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023; pros and cons of such order and the test of “eminent need” whether it is not possible for the Court to reach the truth without use of such test. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner has not disputed the marital status and also the cohabitation with respondent No.2 for few days. In such circumstance, in my considered view, the paternity cannot be questioned". Before the high court the husband argued that though he has not denied the marital status, however, child was not his. He said that he and his wife were lived together for few days and there was no continuous cohabitation between them. As such, he suspected the paternity of the child. The court noted that as per the records, the petitioner had not disputed the marital status with his wife. It was an admitted case of the petitioner that they both married on 25.05.2022 and they lived together for few days and during their stay, they both were cohabiting. The court noted that the Family Court while rejecting the petitioner's application for DNA test had opined that, since the petitioner and the respondent wife had stayed for a period of one week and were in cohabitation, the paternity of the child cannot be doubted. The court said that no doubt, in the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., if the husband disputes the marital relationship or the paternity of the child, the Court is empowered to direct DNA test to ascertain the truth of such assertions. It referred to Supreme Court's decision in Goutam Kundu v. State of W.B (1993) wherein it was held that courts in India cannot order blood test as a matter of course. The Apex Court had further said that "the court must carefully examine as to what would be the consequence of ordering the blood= test; whether it will have the effect of branding a child as a bastard and the mother as an unchaste woman".Upholding the family court order the high court dismissed the plea as lacking merit. Case title: X v/s Y CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201037 OF 2025Click Here To Read/Download OrderCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 41

Mere Claim Of Short, Discontinuous Cohabitation Not Enough To Seek DNA Test Of Child: Karnataka High Court Rejects Husband's Plea

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Mere Claim Of Short, Discontinuous Cohabitation Not Enough To Seek DNA Test Of Child: Karnataka High Court Rejects Husband's Plea

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers