'Directions For Conducting DNA Test Violative Of Individual's Privacy': MP High Court Denies Permission For Blood Test In Relation To Property Dispute

Further, considering the seriousness of Courts ordering blood/ DNA test of an individual, Justice G.S. Ahluwalia observed-

The Supreme Court in the case of Banarsi Dass vs. Teeku Dutta (Mrs.) & Another, reported in 2005 (4) SCC 449 has held that the courts in India cannot order blood test as a matter of course. There must be a strong prima-facie case to the effect that the husband had no access in order to dispel the presumption arising under Section 112 of Evidence Act and the court must carefully examine as to what would be the consequence of ordering the blood test i.e. whether it will have the effect of branding a child as a illegitimate child or mother as an unchaste woman.

Directions for conducting the DNA test is also violative of privacy of a individual.

The facts of the case were that the husband of the Petitioner had instituted a civil suit for partition. On his death, an application was moved for bringing the Petitioner as his legal representative. An objection to the same was raised by one of the respondents that one Hemlata should've been impleaded as the legal representative as she was the daughter of the Petitioner's husband.

The Petitioner then moved an application under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) CPC r/w Section 45 of the Evidence Act, asserting that Hemlata was not her daughter and therefore prayed for her DNA test to ascertain that she was not the daughter of her husband either.

The trial court, however, rejected her application. Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed a petition before the Court to challenge the said order of rejection.

The Petitioner submitted before the Court that where the question of property is involved and the paternity of the person is also in dispute, a direction for DNA test may be issued. To substantiate her argument, she relied on the decision of the Court in Radheshyam v. Kamla Devi & Ors.

Examining the jurisprudence laid down by the Apex Court on the subject concerned and the provisions under the Evidence Act, the Court held that it was in consonance with the decision of the lower court-

It is not the case of the petitioner that Hemlata Yadav was born prior to her marriage with late Kaptan Singh. The presumption as provided under Section 112 of Evidence Act is a rebutable presumption and the petitioner will get every opportunity to rebut the said presumption in the trial.

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court did not commit any jurisdictional error by rejecting the application for compelling Hemlata Yadav to undergo a DNA test.

With the aforesaid observations, the prayer of the Petitioner was rejected and accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Case Title : SMT. URMILA SINGH v . SAUDAN SINGH S and ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 179

Click Here To Read/Download Order