"No Pawns in Parental Battles": Andhra Pradesh HC Shields Children from DNA Tests in Divorce Feud

In a ruling that underscores the sanctity of a child's dignity amid matrimonial strife, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati dismissed a husband's plea for DNA testing on his two children. Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao , in his order dated March 12, 2026, firmly held that children cannot be dragged into proving a spouse's alleged infidelity, especially when the divorce hinges on desertion rather than adultery. This decision in Civil Revision Petition No. 3393 of 2025 reinforces judicial caution against invasive tests that could scar young lives.

From Desertion Claim to Paternity Probe: The Marital Breakdown Unravels

The saga began with the husband filing H.M.O.P. No. 45 of 2019 before the Senior Civil Judge at Vizianagaram, seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , on grounds of the wife's desertion for over two years. While the original petition (O.P.) pended, he moved I.A. No. 553 of 2022 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 , requesting DNA tests at the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, Amaravati , for children Krishna Veni and Santhosh (alias Ramesh). He claimed they were not born of the wedlock, aiming to expose the wife's adultery.

The trial court rejected this on July 10, 2024, citing social stigma and Supreme Court precedents against routine DNA orders. Undeterred, the husband challenged it via Article 227 petition before the High Court, igniting a clash between parental proof-seeking and child welfare.

Husband's Quest for 'Truth' vs. Wife's Shield of Innocence

The petitioner's counsel, M.M.M. Krishna Sanapala , argued DNA testing uncovers truth without undue prejudice, balancing privacy with justice. Denying it, he contended, robs the husband of vital evidence for fair trial, invoking the right to best evidence and citing Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI ((2012) 10 SCC 603) for privacy yielding to justice.

Opposing, Arrabolu Sai Naveen for the wife leaned on binding Supreme Court wisdom: Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1993 SC 2295) warns against mechanical blood tests, upholding Section 112 Evidence Act 's strong legitimacy presumption for children born in wedlock. Recent echoes in R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1086) and Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia ((2024) 7 SCC 773) stress viewing DNA pleas through the child's prism, not warring parents'. Courts must shun tools invading privacy with devastating child impacts, even if parents cohabited at conception.

Parsing Precedents: Why Kids Aren't Courtroom Collateral

Justice Rao dissected the precedents meticulously. Goutam Kundu mandates strong reasons to rebut legitimacy presumption, protecting reputation. Aparna Firodia pivots analysis to child-centric welfare: "The child cannot be used as a pawn to show that the mother... was living in adultery." The husband must prove adultery otherwise, sans maintenance claims from kids—who aren't even parties.

Rajendran deems DNA "delicate," reluctant absent compelling need, lest it bastardize innocents. Notably, desertion—not adultery—grounds the divorce, rendering child tests irrelevant. "To enable one party... fair trial, the Court cannot sacrifice... the child," the court echoed, distinguishing spousal lis from third-party rights.

Court's Razor-Sharp Observations

Key excerpts from the judgment illuminate the stance:

"For the purpose of proving the wife is adultery, the petitioner cannot seek a DNA of his children."

"The question as to whether a DNA test should be permitted on the child, is to be analyzed through the prism of the child and not through the prism of the parents."

"Even assuming that the wife is committing adultery, the petitioner cannot file an application to send the children for DNA testing particularly when the children are not claiming any maintenance from the father and the adulterer and children are not parties to the lis."

These quotes, drawn amid rising matrimonial DNA pleas, signal judicial red lines.

Dismissal with Costs: A Clear Mandate for Future Feuds

The High Court dismissed the revision, imposing Rs. 3,000 costs payable to the District Legal Services Authority within three weeks—or face recovery, even civil imprisonment. Pending interlocutory applications closed.

Practically, it bars collateral child-testing in non-paternity suits, nudging husbands toward alternative adultery evidence. For future cases, it amplifies Aparna Firodia 's child-first lens, potentially curbing invasive bids while upholding Section 112 's bulwark. As media reports note, this aligns with trends shielding minors from spousal vendettas, ensuring "rights and best interests of a third party, namely, the child," prevail.