Justice Shamim Ahmed remarked that the husband had sought a DNA test only to humiliate and defame his wife in the society, and to protract the maintenance case filed by the wife. Thus, the court deemed it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs 50,000 on the husband, to be payable to the wife.

“In the present case, this Court finds that the Revision Petitioner, only with a view to humiliate his wife and to defame her name and to protract the DVC/maintenance case filed by his wife, has come forward with this frivolous Criminal Revision Case. This Court is of the view that the Revision Petitioner has failed to establish a prima facie case for directing a DNA test,” the court said.

“This Court deem it appropriate to impose cost to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), on the Revision Petitioner, as he tried to humiliate his wife/ the Respondent herein and to defame her name in the Society,” the court added.

The court was hearing a revision petition filed by the husband against the order of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, rejecting his application under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking a DNA test.

The marriage between the parties took place in 2008, and they had a male child from the marriage. Due to a matrimonial dispute, the wife had filed a domestic violence plea before the Welfare Officer and later before the Judicial Magistrate Court. The husband had filed a plea before the Magistrate, seeking a DNA test to prove that the male child was not his.

The trial court rejected the plea for a DNA test, on the ground that there was no material to presume that the husband did not have access to the wife during the relevant period. The husband had thus approached the High Court by way of a criminal revision petition against this order.

The husband argued that he had denied the paternity of the child since the beginning and in order to prove that there was no access, a DNA test was necessary. It was argued that the trial court had erred in passing the order, as it did not consider the facts.

The court took note of various decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, in which the courts have repeatedly held that a DNA test could not be ordered in a routine manner, unless a strong case exists.

“The DNA Testing cannot be used as a short cut method to establish infidelity that might have occurred over a decade ago or subsequently after the birth of the male child…The question whether a DNA Test should be permitted on the child is to be analysed through the prism of the child and not through the prism of the parents. The child cannot be used as a pawn to show that the mother of the child was living in adultery. It is always open to the husband to prove by other evidence the adulterious conduct of the wife, but the child's right to identity should not be allowed to be sacrificed,” the court said.

The court thus concluded that a DNA test in the present case would infringe the fundamental rights of the wife, especially since the husband had not shown any sufficient cause.

Finding no merit in the criminal revision petition, the court dismissed the same.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. K. Balakrishnan