Courts Must Protect Child’s Identity: Andhra Pradesh HC Rejects DNA Test in Partition Dispute

In a significant ruling regarding the limits of forensic evidence in civil litigation, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has reaffirmed that courts should not order DNA testing as a casual or routine matter. Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao dismissed a Civil Revision Petition that sought to compel a DNA test to challenge the legitimacy of an individual in a partition suit.

The Conflict of Lineage and Law

The dispute arose out of O.S. No. 56 of 2023, a suit for the partition of property filed by the respondent, Dingu Kanaka Mahalakshmi. The petitioner, Saradaga Narasayya Reddy, claimed to be the defendant in the matter, contending that the respondent was not his biological daughter, but rather the child of his elder brother.

To support this claim, the petitioner sought an order under Order XXVI Rule 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for a DNA test. The trial court initially rebuffed the request, noting that the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff to establish their case through cogent, independent evidence rather than relying on the defendant to disprove paternity via forensic technology at the outset.

The Legal Framework: Balancing Rights

The High Court’s analysis emphasized that the judicial system must protect the reputation and social standing of individuals, particularly children, from invasive testing protocols. Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao leaned heavily on the precedents set by the Supreme Court of India.

Specifically, the Court referenced the landmark judgment in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2024), where the Supreme Court asserted that the question of a DNA test must be analyzed through the "prism of the child." Using a child as a legal pawn to substantiate allegations of adultery or to settle property scores effectively sacrifices the child’s fundamental right to identity.

Furthermore, the Court cited the seminal principles in Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal , which warns that blood tests should not be ordered as a matter of course. Invoking the strong presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court highlighted that such testing requires "strong reasons" to override established legal presumptions.

Key Observations

• On the Child’s Rights: "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."
• On the Standard of Proof: "Courts should not order blood tests as a matter of course and the presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act that a child born during a valid marriage is legitimate is very strong."
• On the Limits of Forensic Discovery: "The petitioner cannot file an application to send the respondent for DNA test particularly when the plaintiff is claiming partition... He has to adduce the evidence in any other manner."

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, finding it devoid of merit. To deter frivolous petitions that derail civil proceedings, the Court imposed costs of ₹3,000 upon the petitioner, payable to the District Legal Services Authority.

The ruling serves as a vital reminder for litigants: forensic tools in civil courts are not weapons for character assassination. When partition suits descend into disputes over paternity, the law demands that the veracity of claims be established through traditional modes of evidence, while ensuring that the sanctity of family identity remains shielded from unnecessary forensic intrusion.